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.
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"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."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The initial setup was simple."
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"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."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"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."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"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."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"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."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"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."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"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."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"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 support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 38 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 31 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 "The solution is scalable and affordable, but it lacks features, and it is not easy to manage". 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.