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 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."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"Documentation and problem-solving troubleshooting are the most valuable features. Performance (when fine-tuned and with "special" HW) is awesome, equal to or more than other enterprise closed-source solutions."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The solution is stable."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"We hope that Red Hat can produce a paradigm edition. We are looking for paradigm computing and paradigm storage. Its scalability can be improved. It is not easy to scale, and we hope that Red Hat can provide a more scalable system. They should also provide local service and support. Our customers are looking for a good software vendor to provide professional services."
"I heard that there are big differences between Red Hat eight and seven, but it's still quite difficult for me to judge it. I found it a bit more difficult to manage than version seven, which was much easier. In term of features, though, it is still not yet clear which is better. I have no clear idea of which features need to be changed at the moment."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"This solution could be more secure."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 38 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 31 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 "The solution is scalable and affordable, but it lacks features, and it is not easy to manage". 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.