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 have found KVM to be scalable."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"The solution is stable."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"It's a scalable solution."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"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."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"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."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"When we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat."
"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."
"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."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"This solution could be more secure."
"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 solution has a very small lifecycle."
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.