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.
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"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."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so."
"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."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"Customers are moving to open source and Red Hat is the leader in this particular space. I think customers feel more confident running Red Hat Virtualization than VMware."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"I heard that there are big differences between Red Hat eight and seven, but it's still quite difficult for me to judge it. I found it a bit more difficult to manage than version seven, which was much easier. In term of features, though, it is still not yet clear which is better. I have no clear idea of which features need to be changed at the moment."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"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."
"The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"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 33 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.