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.
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"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."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"The initial setup was simple."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"It is very stable."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The only negative aspect of needing hardware support is a fully functional KVM can be dropped. It would be nice if the support for other platforms, like ARM or Risk, were as good as the x86 one. However, with the democratization of Chromebooks based on these chips and mobile devices, it will not take long for that to happen."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"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."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"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."
"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."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
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.