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 offers a high-availability environment."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"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."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"I think nine out of the ten supercomputers in the world use Linux KVM, so I think that attests to the fact that it is a scalable product."
"KVM is stable."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"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."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"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."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"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."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"This solution could be more secure."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 15 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 8 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while RHEV is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Reduces OpEx and is easy to maintain, along with low memory usage and a minimal interface". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RHEV writes "An easy initial setup with fair pricing and good reliability". 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.