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 KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"The initial setup was simple."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"KVM is stable."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"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."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy."
"One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"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."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"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."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
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.