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 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."
"Very cost-effective."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"The performance is great."
"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 KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"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."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"It is very stable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"It's a scalable solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"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."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
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.