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.
"Documentation and problem-solving troubleshooting are the most valuable features. Performance (when fine-tuned and with "special" HW) is awesome, equal to or more than other enterprise closed-source solutions."
"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."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"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."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"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 virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"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."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"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."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"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."
"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."
"In comparison to VMware, this solution isn't as stable. We're testing it right now, and we're not trusting the stability of the product."
"This solution could be more secure."
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.