We performed a comparison between KVM and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"Very cost-effective."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"Some of the most valuable features of Nutanix Acropolis are that it's free from Nutanix and it's very stable."
"The most valuable feature is the solution's ease of upgrading."
"Nutanix Acropolis AOS is easy to use, it is a great platform."
"There are a lot of features in Nutanix that are different from other hyper-converged solutions, such as site-to-site replication. VM-based site-to-site replication is bundled with the software licensing. For the DR, it has the availability groups, which is one of the key features that Nutanix provides."
"Single-click upgrades are the most valuable feature. In the sector in which we work, it is tough to have downtime and arrange firmware upgrades."
"Karbon is a must-have as it drastically simplifies the deployment of Kubernetes."
"The hyperconvergence service, as well as the DR solution, are game-changers for Nutanix."
"Nutanix Acropolis AOS is flexible and has helped people to work from home during the pandemic."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"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."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"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."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"The scalability of the solution had some issues because there were many VMs and the replication ran into some bottlenecks. It was an issue that was known to Nutanix and it was not disclosed to the customer."
"In the licensing, it needs to be clear about features because it is not clear whether Flow is integrated or not."
"The product could be improved with more security. The product needs a bit more experience in the market. I think you don't have the possibility to add other hardware. It could be improved with the ability to add and extend."
"The cost of the solution is too expensive. There are other options, such as VMware, that are offered for less money. In Latin America, it seems to be overpriced for the market."
"Nutanix should improve AHV to support migration VMs between clusters and storage containers. Migration between containers is possible, but it requires shutting down the VM. The procedure is long and there is no migration between clusters at all."
"The product needs improvement in the areas of SAN attachment for high capacity and high I/O profile workloads."
"I'm not very technical, so I don't know if there are any features that are really lacking. Our customers seem pleased with it, and I haven't heard of any downsides."
"Reduce its power consumption."
More Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) Pricing and Cost Advice →
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) is ranked 2nd in HCI with 194 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) 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 Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) writes "A powerful solution with easy deployment, upgrades, and management". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and Oracle Linux, whereas Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) is most compared with VMware vSAN, VxRail, HPE SimpliVity, VMware vSphere and Hyper-V.
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.