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.
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"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."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"It's a scalable solution."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"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."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"When we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
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.