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."It is quite flexible and rugged. It is also easy to understand and user-friendly. It is not as complicated as some of the other solutions. It has its technicalities, but it is easy to understand. You can easily pick up in a short period of time and understand how to manage the infrastructure."
"The initial setup is easy."
"I find it very easy to manage and at a cost that small customers would never refuse (free)."
"The support for this solution is phenomenal."
"This is a dependable solution for virtualization with a good community for product support."
"The solution is extremely user friendly."
"What I find most valuable in Citrix Hypervisor is its licensing policy, because you'll get it for free if you buy a Citrix XenDesktop license. You don't need to spend additional money on the Citrix Hypervisor because you can manage both the Citrix XenDesktop and the Citrix Hypervisor with just one license, so you can save on cost. I also like that the solution is good support-wise. Hardware support is also faster compared to other solutions."
"The solution integrates well with other solutions, which makes it really strong as a primary solution to deploy."
"Very cost-effective."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"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."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"You need a licensed account to look up technical support."
"I am not very sure about how flexible Citrix Hypervisor is with different types of infrastructures. I only know it is flexible with Nutanix, but I am not sure if it is also flexible with others. They can make its integration with other platforms or OEMs easy. They should also make it easy for users to manage their infrastructure. Citrix should make compatibility information related to a hypervisor easily available in a datasheet. Citrix isn't really recognized in this part of the world, and they need to expand their solution and make it more available. There are a lot of customers and companies that are looking for a solution like Citrix, and it should be available in this part of the world. They need to educate people more. Technically, it is good and flexible and has good ability, but it is not as much known as VMware or Microsoft. Their support should also be improved. Currently, if you don't have an updated version, they will not give you the attention."
"The graphics user interface is pretty bad."
"There's a learning curve, especially for those coming from a Microsoft background. Setting it up and managing it can introduce some complexity."
"The USB support for the virtual server needs improvement."
"Overall, I can't think of a feature that is lacking. We've been pretty satisfied overall."
"There are several areas that need improvement including the stability of the networking stack and networking management."
"Citrix is not investing in the virtual surroundings."
"One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"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."
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.
