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."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"It's a scalable solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"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."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"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."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"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."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"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."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
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.