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.
"KVM is stable."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"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 previously used VMware and KVM is easier to use. However, they both have their strengths depending on their use cases. They are mostly equal. One of VMware's advantages is it has better support."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
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.