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.
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"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."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"I like that it's easy to manage. It's also more powerful when it comes to security than others. That point of view is the one consideration. The other consideration is that it's cost-effective."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"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."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"It is simple and straightforward, and it will only require you one system integrator to do the job."
"It provides enhancements for network and storage configuration, policy-based management for delivering application resource flexibility, and a GUI."
"The biggest advantage of Oracle VM is that you can separate your clusters to get your licenses agreement in scope."
"Cloning is the best feature in Oracle VM."
"Because of the virtualization for Linux, I use just Linux basically in all VMs, a few with Windows."
"Good visualization hypervisor."
"I like Oracle VM's vMotion and cloning features."
"What I like best about this product is that it's free."
"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."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"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 usage could be easier, and more user-friendly."
"The user interface of the version that we have requires improvement. They have already improved the user interface in the latest version, but we are yet to migrate to that. The new UI is much better. I would like it to be simple. It is serving all of our needs, and I don't think it is necessary to keep adding. We are able to provision a VM in ten minutes, and provisioning it in five minutes will not have any added benefit."
"I would like to be able to ship all of our logs. This feature could exist and I am just not aware of it."
"If there are issues with the storage, then all the machines go down, even if I have a backup solution in place."
"This solution is not as stable as other solutions in the market. But, Oracle has made an effort to improve these issues with recent updates."
"Incorporating analytics related to performance, particularly within the dashboard interface, would be beneficial."
"Oracle VM could provide integration with backup solutions."
"Integration capabilities are a little complicated. It could be made easier. Whether integrating with Azure or other platforms or integration with OIC itself, the integration part is a little complicated."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Oracle VM is ranked 7th in Server Virtualization Software with 78 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.