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 tool's most valuable feature is backup. The product makes it easy to manage virtual machines. Other tools require third-party applications like VMware and vSphere. However, KVM doesn't require these applications."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"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."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"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."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"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 previously used VMware and KVM is easier to use. However, they both have their strengths depending on their use cases. They are mostly equal. One of VMware's advantages is it has better support."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"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."
"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."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"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."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
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.