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.
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"The tool's most valuable feature is backup. The product makes it easy to manage virtual machines. Other tools require third-party applications like VMware and vSphere. However, KVM doesn't require these applications."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"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."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"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."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"The only negative aspect of needing hardware support is a fully functional KVM can be dropped. It would be nice if the support for other platforms, like ARM or Risk, were as good as the x86 one. However, with the democratization of Chromebooks based on these chips and mobile devices, it will not take long for that to happen."
"When we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat."
"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."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"This solution could be more secure."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"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 could use network virtualization."
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.