We performed a comparison between KVM and RHEV based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: KVM wins out in this comparison. Users find it very fast and super easy to use and manage. It provides excellent security and scales easily. Many users feel RHEV is lacking in some documentation capabilities and security features and that it can be challenging to scale up when needed.
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"The key aspect is that the KVM directly interacts with the Kronos. There's no clear indication of indirect communication with Kronos. It is not linked to Kronos, and interaction is straightforward without any intermediaries."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"It is very stable."
"The most valuable features of RHEV are all the tools, such as virtualization, management of cloud platforms, and integration of container environments. The solution has good compatibility between virtualization, content management, and cloud management. Having the full set of these tools is the advantage of it."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"Customers are moving to open source and Red Hat is the leader in this particular space. I think customers feel more confident running Red Hat Virtualization than VMware."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"I believe KVM offers a unified answer, while ProxMark addresses orchestration. KVM lacks orchestration. If the aim is to centrally oversee multiple KVMs – let's say to freeze them – a centralized management solution is absent."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"RHEV can improve by keeping pace with new features and new enhancements. They should not be halted or delayed innovation because over the past quarter the enhancements have not been as fast as they have been previously."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
"It would be better to have more patches, especially kernel-level updates, live and online so that we can keep the business up and running during this period."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 32 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while RHEV is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RHEV writes "Offers frameworks with well-documented API and easy to use". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and Citrix Hypervisor, whereas RHEV is most compared with VMware vSphere, Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, Oracle VM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization. See our KVM vs. RHEV report.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.