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 most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"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."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The key aspect is that the KVM directly interacts with the Kronos. There's no clear indication of indirect communication with Kronos. It is not linked to Kronos, and interaction is straightforward without any intermediaries."
"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."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The only negative aspect of needing hardware support is a fully functional KVM can be dropped. It would be nice if the support for other platforms, like ARM or Risk, were as good as the x86 one. However, with the democratization of Chromebooks based on these chips and mobile devices, it will not take long for that to happen."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"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."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"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."
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.