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.
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"KVM is stable."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"The solution scales very well."
"Nutanix AHV's most valuable feature is NetFlow."
"The setup is efficient."
"The storage features and volume system are great."
"The interface is very good, and quite user-friendly."
"Nutanix AHV Virtualization has good performance and can be used for backup and disaster."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the built-in data protection, that helps with backup in a matter of minutes."
"With AHV, you can run micro-segmentation, which is, on the network security level, to have network virtualization across clouds."
"One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"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."
"It worked well in the beginning but after using it for some time, we found some limitations in terms of compatibility with other software."
"I would like to see better decompression or degrouping of the VMs so that we can use a single number of SQLs with two servers. We don't need a huge number of DXSPs."
"It would be better if the solution's replication to another site could be efficiently optimized."
"There is room for improvement in the USB mapping."
"There is no web interface with AHV."
"A lot of tasks cannot be performed using the GUI, the graphical interface."
"Honestly, there's a lot to work on the product, especially for someone like me who has worked on VMware. VMware offers a significant level of customization when configuring virtual machines, and that level of detail is not as pronounced on Nutanix AHV Virtualization."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 44 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, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and RHEV, whereas Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V, Citrix Hypervisor and Oracle VM. 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.