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.
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"KVM is stable."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The initial setup was simple."
"If we want to move the virtual machine from one host to another, it's simple, straightforward, and stable."
"The initial setup of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is straightforward."
"This product stands out for its user-friendly interface, intuitive design, and responsive UI. It offers AVH features comparable to Nutanix but at a more cost-effective price point."
"The solution is user-friendly and provides good virtual machine backups. The user interface gets updated when there is a new release."
"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 most valuable feature is the integration between storage and compute services."
"This solution is very stable and it has been running for the last three months, with no issues."
"The most valuable part of Nutanix is its centralized management of everything."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"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."
"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 KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"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."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"It would be better if the solution's replication to another site could be efficiently optimized."
"It's not a very scalable product."
"The solution should work to improve its stability."
"The integration capabilities of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is an area with certain shortcomings that need improvement."
"There is room for improvement in the USB mapping."
"A lot of tasks cannot be performed using the GUI, the graphical interface."
"If you have the need for special hardware like FibreChannel-Cards or such and there is no networked-way around it (such as you could work with USB Dongles via an HW-Dongle-Server of network), you have to use a separate hypervisor."
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, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V 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.