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

Hyper-V vs KVM vs RHEV comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of Hyper-V is 19.1%, up from 14.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of KVM is 8.1%, down from 10.4% 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 (%)
Hyper-V19.1%
KVM8.1%
RHEV2.4%
Other70.4%
Server Virtualization Software
 

Featured Reviews

Tomas Basus - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Professional at NIPOS
Virtualization has reduced licensing costs and improved integration but still needs better performance insight
Integrations bring the biggest benefit to us. We use half of our virtual machines that are Microsoft, so it works better hosted in Hyper-V compared to VMware. Clustering and failover capabilities in the product help with our availability. It helped because we switched to Hyper-V because it was lower cost than paying for high availability in VMware. We need Microsoft licenses for virtual machines, so it costs less than buying two solutions for that. We have data center editions, so it did not cost us additional money compared to paying for high availability from VMware. I think it helped a little, but not so different compared to VMware regarding security and bandwidth optimization.
BB
Chief Technology Officer at a manufacturing company with 11-50 employees
Low latency in mission-critical environments with different virtualization environments
The most valuable feature of KVM is its superior real-time performance, which results in lower latency compared to alternatives like VMware and Microsoft. The ability to switch from one VM to another efficiently, thanks to the implementation of a real-time kernel, ensures delays remain minimal, thereby meeting our organization's performance requirements. This improved latency is critical because any delay in voice transmission could lead to life-threatening situations. Additionally, KVM being open-source means that we are not obligated to pay for licenses, which significantly reduces costs and simplifies license handling for ourselves and on behalf of customers.
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

"It is an affordable platform."
"Hyper-V deployment is very user-friendly. It supports partial scripting and offers a UI for a smooth experience. There's also PowerShell scripting available for advanced users."
"The flexibility and API are the most valuable features. It helps us be able to integrate with other systems and then push data easily."
"It allows for quick deployment of servers and workloads."
"The solution is stable."
"All in all, Microsoft Hyper-V is an excellent platform and a great competitor for VMWare."
"It is a very stable product. We have not had any issues with Hyper-V crashing itself."
"We previously used VMware, but we switched because Hyper-V is cheaper and delivers the same stability for less money."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"The solution is really easy to use; basically, it takes just a few command-line statements to install and have it set up and running, and from there you can use either the command-line virtual manager or the graphical user interface to pretty much run and manage all of the virtual machines."
"The solution is very light when you are putting your Operating System on it, and you forget that there's a virtual layer on your solution because you are using it as if it was a whole computer."
"The initial setup was simple."
"It allows us to virtualize our entire IT Infrastructure without any software cost."
"Compared to other virtualization solutions KVM is much faster and better at managing resources."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"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 can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"The biggest aspect for me is the disk usage, the virtual manager, and the deployment of machines."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"The support for this solution is very good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"The solution is stable, there are no bugs or glitches, it doesn't crash or freeze, and it's reliable with good performance."
"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."
 

Cons

"In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration."
"I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved."
"It needs additional administration and monitoring capabilities."
"The technical support is good but it could improve by being faster."
"Hyper-V's management platform falls short in terms of scalability, especially when handling multiple Hyper-V servers. VMware has a central console to pull in all your VM servers, so you can easily manage them all through one console. You can manage servers in Hyper-V's admin centers, but it's not as scalable. It's doable with a couple of Hyper-V servers, but it becomes harder to manage when you get over two or three Hyper-V servers."
"ometimes a server or machine shuts down and doesn't automatically restart."
"It needs to improve compatibility with third party software."
"Hyper-V could improve the management tools."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"I have previously used VMware and KVM is easier to use. However, they both have their strengths depending on their use cases. They are mostly equal. One of VMware's advantages is it has better support."
"I am sorry to say that online propaganda made believe that KVM is a mature product that should be considered for production. I think KVM may be good for a lab where the VMs aren't critical."
"Their support for snapshot and revert could be improved."
"Management of underlying volumes."
"RHEV is not improving because it has been discontinued. It has been discontinued for years."
"Scalability depends on the applications. Red Hat by itself is not scalable."
"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."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"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."
"They don't know how to sell their great products and don’t really seem to be interested in taking care of their partners who trust and really know their products."
"I would love to see better documentation and ease of use."
"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

"The pricing is competitive, and a bit less than other options on the market."
"I recommend Hyper-V to customers with budget constraints."
"If you have the standard edition of Windows server then with each copy of the operating system, you have two virtual machines for free."
"It's not expensive."
"We did not have to pay extra money for the Failover Clustering feature."
"The price is quite fair. It is not too expensive."
"The pricing and licensing is fine."
"The Hyper-V pricing and licensing are very good."
"It is cheaper than other competitors like VMware or Hyper-V."
"The tool is free."
"It is cheaper than other solutions out there on the market."
"KVM is priced reasonably."
"We had some problems with the licensing."
"KVM is an open-source solution."
"KVM is an open-source product that works well for us."
"This solution is an open-source, free platform with paid support."
"The solution does not require licencing but a subscription is necessary, which is very affordable."
"We buy a license for commercial use, and we also use the free editions."
"I believe we pay on a yearly basis."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We are using the free version of Red Hat."
"Its price depends on the use cases."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.
885,444 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
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business70
Midsize Enterprise37
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise12
 

Questions from the Community

How does KVM compare with Hyper-V?
KVM is better. But let's just look at the software instead of judging. Hyper-V was a free solution from Microsoft to ...
How does Proxmox VE compare with Hyper-V?
One of the best things about Proxmox VE is that it is open-source and very inexpensive. You get all of the same featu...
What do you like most about Hyper-V?
The initial setup is not difficult at all. It is very easy.
Why KVM??? Help please!
KVM scales better, orchestration better, performs better and supports a wider range of hardware and, also, you can im...
Why KVM??? Help please!
Small support team, small cluster, low core count, use VMware products Large support team, large clusters with many c...
Why KVM??? Help please!
Far from being an expert, my opinion is that the positive sides of KVM are: Lower costs and open-source which gives ...
What do you like most about RHEV?
The initial setup is fairly straightforward and well-documented. The process is very similar to its competitors. The...
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, i...
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 ...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Large customer base from all industries, all over the world. Two major Hyper-V customers are Telefonica and EmpireCLS.
MediaWiki, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikidata, Wikiversity, Commons
Qualcomm and Bonham's Auction House.
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Microsoft, Proxmox and others in Server Virtualization Software. Updated: March 2026.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.