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.
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"The initial setup was simple."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"It's a scalable solution."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"The solution is stable."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"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."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"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 virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"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."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"This solution could be more secure."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
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.