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.
"KVM is stable."
"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."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so."
"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."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The solution is stable."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"We would like to have a software lifecycle solution included in this solution. We can handle the software needed for KVM, but also the software that we provide. A lifecycle component would be very beneficial."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"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."
"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."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"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."
"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."
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.