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.
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"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."
"KVM is stable."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"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."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"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."
"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 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."
"One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"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 solution has a very small lifecycle."
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.