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.
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy 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."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"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."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"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."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"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."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"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."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"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."
"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."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
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.