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 initial setup was very easy."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"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."
"KVM is stable."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"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 of KVM is its stability."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"The solution is stable."
"It's a scalable solution."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward and well-documented. The process is very similar to its competitors. The success of your setup depends on how well you plan."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"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."
"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 previously used VMware and KVM is easier to use. However, they both have their strengths depending on their use cases. They are mostly equal. One of VMware's advantages is it has better support."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"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."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"This solution could be more secure."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
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.