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.
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"It is very stable."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"The solution has many valuable features. Virtualization is flexible and it has simple clustering. However, the most important feature is the ability to move between VMs. The vMotion features are very good."
"Security-Features; vSphere does offer quite a bit of security stuff built-in. It is nice to know that we can have the virtual machines encrypted, so that if somebody were to get a hold of any of those files, we don't have to worry about them actually being used. Since we do have so many different departments and areas with a lot of people that need access into the solution, we can use the role-based access controls to really restrict and control who can do what, so everybody can do what they need to do, but they can't do anything else past that."
"The most valuable features for me are a very easily scalable infrastructure. I can have a couple of hosts to do basic workloads. I can have a lot of hosts to do a lot of workloads. vSAN integrates my storage so I don't need an external storage SAN. I love having everything integrated in the same UI. The new HTML5 interface doesn't require any plugins anymore and it's super-fast."
"It has high clustering and availability features. These features are not found with other hypervisors."
"The most valuable features are the virtualization and the performance on the virtualization platform."
"Visibility: We can easily pull reports and give access to other people to look at specs or performance metrics."
"With VMware vSphere, it is easy to manage the scaling of our company's virtual infrastructure."
"Its scalability potential is good."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"We hope that Red Hat can produce a paradigm edition. We are looking for paradigm computing and paradigm storage. Its scalability can be improved. It is not easy to scale, and we hope that Red Hat can provide a more scalable system. They should also provide local service and support. Our customers are looking for a good software vendor to provide professional services."
"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."
"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."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"Where I think there is room for improvement is in the HTML5 interface in vCenter. What it lacks, for me, is integrating to VMware's other products, especially NSX."
"The only way for it to be a complete product is if you integrate all the functionalities. Then you don't need any backup solution anymore and you can do it by yourself. Integration needs improvement. They should improve a lot of the functionality because normally it's half of a product. You're only protecting yourself against technical failures but not against any cyber threats or any other stuff."
"The solution should be more secure."
"The performance of the solution could be better and there could be an extra level of security."
"I would like to see improvements in simplifying automation, cloud native deployment, administration, and fault resolution."
"I’d like to see a better web console or rather, transform the web console in a real single pane of glass for the whole infrastructure instead of having to go for vRealize Ops Manager."
"We've been using vSphere on Windows 7, and it had less fluff associated with ThinApp. Currently, with Windows 10 version that we have, it adds a lot of bulk to ThinApp. We have offices spanning across Canada from the east coast to the west coast. A ThinApp that is roughly around 400 MB in size would take minutes to open up. With Windows 7, the same ThinApp used to be close to 75 to 80 MB in size. So, I'm really not happy with the extra fluff that is bundled in Windows 10. It really messes things up for us at times."
"Its performance is an issue in version 6.5, but with the inclusion of HTML files in vSphere version 6.7, the experience is seamless. In version 6.7, VMware has included the HTML file protocol for the web browser or web console, which has changed the console's response and improved the performance. We are using the trial version of vRealize Operations. It would be nice if some of those capabilities could be included in future versions of vSphere, not as a part of vRealize Operations, but in vSphere itself. It can provide some kind of forecast about your resource consumption based on the actual workload and modeling or testing scenarios. It can give you some advice or tips for the future growth of your infrastructure."
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: