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."
"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."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The initial setup was simple."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"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."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"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."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"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."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"We hope that Red Hat can produce a paradigm edition. We are looking for paradigm computing and paradigm storage. Its scalability can be improved. It is not easy to scale, and we hope that Red Hat can provide a more scalable system. They should also provide local service and support. Our customers are looking for a good software vendor to provide professional services."
"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 availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"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."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
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.