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.
"I like that it's easy to manage. It's also more powerful when it comes to security than others. That point of view is the one consideration. The other consideration is that it's cost-effective."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"The tool's most valuable feature is backup. The product makes it easy to manage virtual machines. Other tools require third-party applications like VMware and vSphere. However, KVM doesn't require these applications."
"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."
"KVM is stable."
"It's a scalable solution."
"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."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"It is very stable."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"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."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"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."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"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."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"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."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
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.