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.
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"KVM is stable."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The most valuable features of RHEV are all the tools, such as virtualization, management of cloud platforms, and integration of container environments. The solution has good compatibility between virtualization, content management, and cloud management. Having the full set of these tools is the advantage of it."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"It's a scalable solution."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy."
"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."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"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."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"Technical support could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an improved user interface and dashboard. This type of improvement will make it easy or help our engineers understand the solution from a requirement point of view."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"I heard that there are big differences between Red Hat eight and seven, but it's still quite difficult for me to judge it. I found it a bit more difficult to manage than version seven, which was much easier. In term of features, though, it is still not yet clear which is better. I have no clear idea of which features need to be changed at the moment."
"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."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
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.