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."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"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."
"Customers are moving to open source and Red Hat is the leader in this particular space. I think customers feel more confident running Red Hat Virtualization than VMware."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"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."
"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."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"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."
"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 UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"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."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
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.