We performed a comparison between KVM and Nutanix AHV based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below
Comparison Results: KVM has a slight edge in this comparison. It received higher marks for its user interface than Nutanix AHV did.
"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."
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"This solution is very stable and it has been running for the last three months, with no issues."
"It is the simple non-consideration we get with this product that's great. It just works."
"Nutanix's customer support is good, one of its biggest selling points."
"For our markets here in Morocco, we are mainly working with server virtualization, and the most valuable feature is the software-defined storage and hyper-converged infrastructure."
"The solution is user-friendly and provides good virtual machine backups. The user interface gets updated when there is a new release."
"Nutanix is good for new implementations on the VM side. It's very good for disaster recovery and final storage."
"Nutanix AHV Virtualization is a private cloud platform offering integration with various public cloud providers. This integration allows for a multi-cloud approach. In my opinion, Nutanix AHV Virtualization's strength is its storage. It innovates and excels in the hyper-converged storage segment, making it the number one choice in this area."
"The interface is very good, and quite user-friendly."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"I believe KVM offers a unified answer, while ProxMark addresses orchestration. KVM lacks orchestration. If the aim is to centrally oversee multiple KVMs – let's say to freeze them – a centralized management solution is absent."
"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."
"One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines."
"The product must provide geo clusters."
"A lot of tasks cannot be performed using the GUI, the graphical interface."
"Some companies do not support AHV."
"The solution is very expensive."
"There is no web interface for AHV."
"The initial installation is complex. It took approximately four days."
"The software based controller has high consumption. This could be improved."
"It should focus on providing more detailed and helpful error messages. One area we'd like to see enhanced is better support for guest VMs, especially in a heterogeneous environment."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 48 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nutanix AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and RHEV, whereas Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere, Citrix Hypervisor and RHEV. See our KVM vs. Nutanix AHV Virtualization 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.