We performed a comparison between RHEV and VMware VSphere based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, VMware VSphere got better user reviews. One major difference between the two solutions is that users say that RHEV’s scalability is not great.
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward and well-documented. The process is very similar to its competitors. The success of your setup depends on how well you plan."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"Virtualization, VDI and application publishing are the most valuable features of VMware vSphere."
"The easy of use with reduced space provides a better use of infrastructure"
"Its DR facility is good. Within a moment, data can be retrieve from another physical location over the Internet. The speed to recover data is good."
"vSphere has enabled an enterprise class virtualization environment with a central point of monitoring and management stretched over multiple datacenters (multi-site use), adding all the features of clustering for high-availability and failover, VM migration, and operations."
"VMware vSphere has a lot of features that are valuable, such as multiple clusters, VM mobility, VDI, and virtual desktop."
"The connectivity is fantastic, and many functions can run together in one server. If you need to scale, we can continue to add components or modules. It's a beautiful virtual solution that has many advantages over physical hardware, where you have to use devices and wiring to connect all your projects."
"The benefit of the solution is that you can create template-based servers within minutes. If you were to use a physical server, it would probably take several hours, if not a whole day, to get everything set up the way you need."
"Ease-of-Use; The solution is very simple to use and to manage. Updates are simple. The biggest feature that enables the ease of use is the fact that you can update via the web interface. With a couple of clicks, the update is done; no manual intervention, you just click Update and it automatically reboots the server for you and you're back up and going again."
"This solution could be more secure."
"The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"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."
"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."
"Archiving, exporting, and backing up need to be improved for this solution, because they're slower than expected."
"I do not find it to be simple and efficient to manage. The tools, the interface to manage it, are a pain. In the latest version, they moved us to web-only, the Web Client and it's terrible. It's slow. It crashes. It's annoying. I used the Web Client in the older version and was happy. I would go back to the regular thick client but I don't have that option anymore, so I am always fighting it."
"We want to see improvement from VMware with security. We want minimal downtime. We want automation. We want to deploy more efficiently."
"There is definitely room for improvement and that improvement should be in the licensing and the simplicity of procuring additional licenses or additional VMware products. Right now, it's very complex."
"They need to stop pushing code out so fast."
"The latest version of the solution has a few bugs."
"The technical support is poor. We are in Australia, but we do not have the same level of support as the US and Europe."
"I would like to see more software as a service solutions."
RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 32 reviews while VMware vSphere is ranked 2nd in Server Virtualization Software with 446 reviews. RHEV is rated 7.6, while VMware vSphere is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of RHEV writes "Offers frameworks with well-documented API and easy to use". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware vSphere writes "Offers good performance and is useful for banking systems". RHEV is most compared with KVM, Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, Oracle VM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas VMware vSphere is most compared with Hyper-V, Proxmox VE, VMware Workstation, Oracle VM and Citrix Hypervisor. See our RHEV vs. VMware vSphere 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.
Hi Sridhar, This is Rajkumar Gera, VP IT in one of the Telecom. Below are some of the points, may help you: