We performed a comparison between Citrix Hypervisor and KVM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I like the most is the support of the GPU Graphics and the VM Live migration."
"Scripting can automate procedures."
"Citrix Hypervisor does a great job overall, such as the virtualization of the host. It's very easy to manage the virtual machine, to create, and configure high availability."
"The ability to move a virtual machine while it is running is a big advantage."
"The continued uptime of our virtual machines is good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is very fast. It also works very well for physically small servers."
"The solution integrates well with other solutions, which makes it really strong as a primary solution to deploy."
"This is a dependable solution for virtualization with a good community for product support."
"The initial setup was simple."
"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."
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"KVM is stable."
"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."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"The licensing costs are too high on the solution. They should work to make the costs more reasonable."
"There are several areas that need improvement including the stability of the networking stack and networking management."
"The manageability of the solution needs improvement. It's an extremely bad product to handle."
"It can be useful to have a web management program because we have to install our client-server. We have to properly manage the host, if we had administration tools through a web interface it would be a benefit."
"The interface has to be updated."
"The built-in networking features are a little limited."
"Citrix Hypervisor is expensive if you get it as a stand-alone product, so this is one area for improvement. Its price could be cheaper. We also found other areas for improvement in Citrix Hypervisor, for example, we can't use SCIM provisioning, and there are limitations to the size of the HDD. Another area for improvement is the pass-through storage, in particular the removable storage, because that also has limitations where you can't connect to the drive if it is more than one TB."
"The solution is too expensive and people are kind of moving away from Citrix. It's starting to become a problem. It is a primary reason that while we are rebuilding we're going to seek out open-source solutions."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"Technical support could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an improved user interface and dashboard. This type of improvement will make it easy or help our engineers understand the solution from a requirement point of view."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
Citrix Hypervisor is ranked 8th in Server Virtualization Software with 46 reviews while KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews. Citrix Hypervisor is rated 8.2, while KVM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Citrix Hypervisor writes "Allows us to allocate CPU, memory, storage, and network resources across VMs and minimizes downtime in case of hardware failure or maintenance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". Citrix Hypervisor is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and IBM PowerVM. See our Citrix Hypervisor vs. KVM 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.
