We performed a comparison between KVM and Oracle VM based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, KVM comes out ahead. It has the speed, stability, and flexibility that make it a very desirable solution for today’s rapidly-changing, ever-growing tech environment. This particular Oracle product, although very mature, has not done enough to stay competitive.
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"The key aspect is that the KVM directly interacts with the Kronos. There's no clear indication of indirect communication with Kronos. It is not linked to Kronos, and interaction is straightforward without any intermediaries."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"KVM is stable."
"It is a stable product."
"It provides enhancements for network and storage configuration, policy-based management for delivering application resource flexibility, and a GUI."
"I rate Oracle VM's scalability a ten out of ten."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the resource management from the OVM Manager."
"The product is simple and easy to use."
"VMware is user-friendly, with clear integration and detailed migration."
"Its technical support is quite good."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"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."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"We would like to have a software lifecycle solution included in this solution. We can handle the software needed for KVM, but also the software that we provide. A lifecycle component would be very beneficial."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"Oracle's VM VirtualBox is a powerful, free, and open-source virtualization tool. However, you'll have to read a lot of documents and perform experiments in test environments to make it work for you."
"Its database management features could be better."
"One is the hypervisor. Right now, it’s all using Xen. What would be really helpful is to have some choice, and the underlying hypervisor technology use KVM which is very popular with certain workloads."
"Productivity in Oracle VM could still be improved, and an additional feature to make the product better is compatibility with Kubernetes and other modern technologies."
"The configuration can be more flexible. It is a necessity."
"There is no memory over-subscription and CPU over-subscription. That has to be improved in terms of Oracle VM perspective. The other leading virtualizing software solutions have this feature."
"The solution needs more features and flexibility in terms of communicating with other platforms. If it had that, it would be the perfect product."
"There have been some security issues in the past."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Oracle VM is ranked 7th in Server Virtualization Software with 77 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while Oracle VM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle VM writes "A cheap option available for Linux environments which is useful for many workloads". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Oracle VM is most compared with VMware vSphere, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Proxmox VE, Hyper-V and RHEV. See our KVM vs. Oracle VM 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.