No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

DxEnterprise vs RHEV comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

DxEnterprise
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
22nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
High Availability Clustering (8th)
RHEV
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
13th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of DxEnterprise is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RHEV is 2.4%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Server Virtualization Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
RHEV2.4%
DxEnterprise0.5%
Other97.1%
Server Virtualization Software
 

Featured Reviews

it_user609366 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solutions Architect at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Initial setup was relatively straightforward for a clustering solution.
SQL patching High availability We were looking for a better-than-Microsoft-SQL clustering solution. The interface can seem a little old school at times. By Old School, I simply mean from a graphics perspective it looks like word 97, not word 2013. I have used it for three years. The team from…
Mike Neuliep - PeerSpot reviewer
Linux Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Has supported virtualization projects in side jobs but has required workarounds due to lack of maintenance
In my opinion, the best features of RHEV are that it is a real hypervisor and it is free, so it performs better than VMware. I have used the live migration feature in the past with RHEV. There is a free clone of it that is based on the open source. Live migration is a nifty feature if your app is not highly available and you need to do maintenance on a machine. You can migrate the VM off of it, do your maintenance, and move it back when you are done. RHEV has a high availability architecture with a built-in monitoring feature where you could see machines other than the one you are operating on. I tend to implement high availability not so much in RHEV, but by using standard application high availability strategies. Red Hat has another product specifically for high availability.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Customer service is excellent and technical support is excellent."
"Customer service has been excellent so far and technical support has been very helpful, quickly resolving any issues we encountered."
"The biggest aspect for me is the disk usage, the virtual manager, and the deployment of machines."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"For any application that requires 100% uptime, 100% of data accessibility, I use these servers."
"The solution is stable, there are no bugs or glitches, it doesn't crash or freeze, and it's reliable with good performance."
"When you purchase RHEV, you are essentially buying a subscription license. This license can be integrated with various client types, including these integrations with the subscription."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Technical support for RHEV is very fast and good."
 

Cons

"Upgrading from DxDev to DxEnterprise was a bit more bumpy, but even that was pretty easy to do."
"The interface can seem a little old school at times."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"We should improve how we manage storage domains and make more comprehensive control available through the command line."
"We hope that Red Hat can produce a paradigm edition. We are looking for paradigm computing and paradigm storage. Its scalability can be improved. It is not easy to scale, and we hope that Red Hat can provide a more scalable system. They should also provide local service and support. Our customers are looking for a good software vendor to provide professional services."
"The GUI interface needs improvement. Not 90%, but 50% or 60% of the work is done from the command line and so on, so the GUI needs work because people are looking for an easier way to manage the environment."
"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."
"There are two things that I would like to see improvement in when it comes to Red Hat. First is the pricing and second is the support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I would say the price is acceptable."
"I believe we pay on a yearly basis."
"It's a budget product as far as I'm concerned. It's way cheaper than any of its competitors. The only thing cheaper than Red Hat is that the people who take the Red Hat code clone it and then self-support it."
"We buy a license for commercial use, and we also use the free editions."
"Its price depends on the use cases."
"This product has a variety of licensing options available. However, the level of licensing, and therefore the cost of licensing, is dependent on the number of servers being utilized."
"We are using the free version of Red Hat."
"The price of RHEV is high. It is an open-source solution, the price should be less. The price should not be on par with a solution, such as VMware. It's not more or equal to VMware, it's less, but the difference should be more substantial."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.
902,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VL
CIO at Robusta Technology & Training
Jan 13, 2015
vSphere vs. RHEV vs. Hyper-V vs. XenServer
We have used the following functions: 1. Hypervisor: to ensure that the virtual server provide web and email services to the company, thus providing a stable operation a with single sign-on integration of an AD server and vCenter. 2. Network and Storage: centralized data server…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise12
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for RHEV?
It's the open source. There's not much cost. It's very minimal comparably. Compared to what I am paying for VMware, it's negligible.
What needs improvement with RHEV?
RHEV is not improving because it has been discontinued. It has been discontinued for years. I would love to get back into RHEV, but the job market is difficult and no one is hiring. RHEV is designe...
What is your primary use case for RHEV?
I have done some consulting where I used RHEV, taking on side jobs to run virtual machines in the financial industry for a startup. The last time I used RHEV was in my home lab, but that has been d...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

DH2i DxEnterprise
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Asante, Eversheds, Vecima Networks, W&W AFCO Steel, City of Aurora, Menigo, Linn County Sheriff's Office
Qualcomm and Bonham's Auction House.
Find out what your peers are saying about DxEnterprise vs. RHEV and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.