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.
"Documentation and problem-solving troubleshooting are the most valuable features. Performance (when fine-tuned and with "special" HW) is awesome, equal to or more than other enterprise closed-source solutions."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"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."
"I like that it's easy to manage. It's also more powerful when it comes to security than others. That point of view is the one consideration. The other consideration is that it's cost-effective."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"It is very stable."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"The only negative aspect of needing hardware support is a fully functional KVM can be dropped. It would be nice if the support for other platforms, like ARM or Risk, were as good as the x86 one. However, with the democratization of Chromebooks based on these chips and mobile devices, it will not take long for that to happen."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"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."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
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.