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 initial setup was very easy."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"KVM is stable."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"I think nine out of the ten supercomputers in the world use Linux KVM, so I think that attests to the fact that it is a scalable product."
"The performance is great."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"It is very stable."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"It's 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."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"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."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"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."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"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 Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"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 solution could use network virtualization."
"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."
"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."
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.