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.
"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."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"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."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"Very cost-effective."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"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."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"It's a scalable solution."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"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."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"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."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"In comparison to VMware, this solution isn't as stable. We're testing it right now, and we're not trusting the stability of the product."
"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."
"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."
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.