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 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."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"It is a stable solution...It is 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."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"I believe KVM offers a unified answer, while ProxMark addresses orchestration. KVM lacks orchestration. If the aim is to centrally oversee multiple KVMs – let's say to freeze them – a centralized management solution is absent."
"We would like to have a software lifecycle solution included in this solution. We can handle the software needed for KVM, but also the software that we provide. A lifecycle component would be very beneficial."
"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."
"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."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"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."
"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.