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.
"The tool's most valuable feature is backup. The product makes it easy to manage virtual machines. Other tools require third-party applications like VMware and vSphere. However, KVM doesn't require these applications."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"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."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"The only negative aspect of needing hardware support is a fully functional KVM can be dropped. It would be nice if the support for other platforms, like ARM or Risk, were as good as the x86 one. However, with the democratization of Chromebooks based on these chips and mobile devices, it will not take long for that to happen."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"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."
"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."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"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."
"RHEV can improve by keeping pace with new features and new enhancements. They should not be halted or delayed innovation because over the past quarter the enhancements have not been as fast as they have been previously."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 32 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.