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 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."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"There is a strong emphasis on availability, and they have numerous API interfaces for distributed storage and the solution is quite known for its openness."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"KVM is stable."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward and well-documented. The process is very similar to its competitors. The success of your setup depends on how well you plan."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"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."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"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 Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"This solution could be more secure."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
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.