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.
"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."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The performance is great."
"I think nine out of the ten supercomputers in the world use Linux KVM, so I think that attests to the fact that it is a scalable product."
"KVM is stable."
"It is a scalable solution."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"Customers are moving to open source and Red Hat is the leader in this particular space. I think customers feel more confident running Red Hat Virtualization than VMware."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"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."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"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."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
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.