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.
"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."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"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."
"KVM is stable."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"There is a strong emphasis on availability, and they have numerous API interfaces for distributed storage and the solution is quite known for its openness."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The solution is stable."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"It is very stable."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"I have previously used VMware and KVM is easier to use. However, they both have their strengths depending on their use cases. They are mostly equal. One of VMware's advantages is it has better support."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"This solution could be more secure."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
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.