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.
"Very cost-effective."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"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 is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"There is a strong emphasis on availability, and they have numerous API interfaces for distributed storage and the solution is quite known for its openness."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"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."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"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."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"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."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"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."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"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."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 33 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.