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 most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"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."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"I like that it's easy to manage. It's also more powerful when it comes to security than others. That point of view is the one consideration. The other consideration is that it's cost-effective."
"KVM is stable."
"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."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features of RHEV are all the tools, such as virtualization, management of cloud platforms, and integration of container environments. The solution has good compatibility between virtualization, content management, and cloud management. Having the full set of these tools is the advantage of it."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"Technical support could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an improved user interface and dashboard. This type of improvement will make it easy or help our engineers understand the solution from a requirement point of view."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"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."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs."
"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 availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"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."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"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.