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 performance is great."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"Very cost-effective."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"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."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"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 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."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"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."
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.