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 GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"There is a strong emphasis on availability, and they have numerous API interfaces for distributed storage and the solution is quite known for its openness."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"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 makes migration easy."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"It is a scalable solution."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"When we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat."
"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."
"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."
"This solution could be more secure."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"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.