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."
"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."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"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 solution makes migration easy."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"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."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"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."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"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."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
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.