Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

KVM vs RHEV comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025

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

KVM
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RHEV
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
12th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of KVM is 10.1%, down from 11.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RHEV is 3.6%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Server Virtualization Software
 

Featured Reviews

Lan Tuong - PeerSpot reviewer
Useful to manage the virtual environments
The most valuable features of KVM for us are the console, which allows us to build or clone VMs quickly, and the ability to take snapshots and recreate new VMs rapidly. That's one of the things we love about KVM. The built-in management console, Auto KVM, is the most valuable tool for managing our virtual environments. We use it most to create and fire up new VMs or clone them for customers based on requests. The migration tools have worked quite well for us. We're moving from an Oracle Solaris platform for KVM logical domains, upgrading, and using KVM from Red Hat. It's slightly different but very similar to Oracle Unbreakable Linux, which is basically a clone of Red Hat. Oracle's console is easier to use than Red Hat's, though.
Sujeet-Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
The solution is scalable and affordable, but it lacks features, and it is not easy to manage
Management of RHEV is not as easy as VMware. Some features do not work. The product does not provide features similar to VMware’s VMotion. After creating the cluster, the VM is moved to another node if we move down. However, the VM does not move the parent node automatically. It has to be moved manually. VMware moves it automatically. RHEV moves it to the parent node only if we restart. Everything can be handled in VMware through the GUI. However, in RHEV, some things can be managed through UI, and others cannot. We have to troubleshoot and use CLI. A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"KVM is stable."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"KVM has benefited our organization by enabling us to assess different virtualization solutions with reduced latency, which is crucial for guaranteeing the reliability and real-time performance of our communication systems."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"The scalability part should be better."
"The most valuable features of RHEV are all the tools, such as virtualization, management of cloud platforms, and integration of container environments. The solution has good compatibility between virtualization, content management, and cloud management. Having the full set of these tools is the advantage of it."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward and well-documented. The process is very similar to its competitors. The success of your setup depends on how well you plan."
 

Cons

"I believe KVM offers a unified answer, while ProxMark addresses orchestration. KVM lacks orchestration. If the aim is to centrally oversee multiple KVMs – let's say to freeze them – a centralized management solution is absent."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The solution overall is just okay."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"In comparison to VMware, this solution isn't as stable. We're testing it right now, and we're not trusting the stability of the product."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"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."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I have no information on the cost of KVM because I downloaded it for the lab and not for production. It's free, but I don't know if that's the case for people using it in a production environment."
"The solution is extremely cheap in China."
"I use KVM for free through Proxmox, which offers a free license alternative."
"KVM is an open-source product that works well for us."
"It is cheaper than other solutions out there on the market."
"It is cheaper than other competitors like VMware or Hyper-V."
"The price is fair compared to others. But in our local market, it's a problem to get budget approval from management. That's why they are trying to get those products so we can give them the price benefit. But if you consider the international market or other products, it's sometimes better than their price."
"KVM is an open-source solution."
"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."
"Its price depends on the use cases."
"I believe we pay on a yearly basis."
"We buy a license for commercial use, and we also use the free editions."
"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."
"I would say the price is acceptable."
"We have to pay extra for vulnerability and fault tolerance."
"Price-wise, RHEV is okay, in my opinion."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VL
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
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Educational Organization
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Why KVM??? Help please!
KVM scales better, orchestration better, performs better and supports a wider range of hardware and, also, you can implement at ZERO cost and with a very powerful web interface for management, from...
Why KVM??? Help please!
Small support team, small cluster, low core count, use VMware products Large support team, large clusters with many cores, use KVM. KVM scales better, orchestration better, performs better and supp...
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 the abilities to customize it according to the specific needs of each customer.
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 success of your setup depends on how well you plan.
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?
My teammates and I often complain that VMware is well-documented and has a large community since it is the de facto standard. I would love to see better documentation and ease of use. For newcomers...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

MediaWiki, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikidata, Wikiversity, Commons
Qualcomm and Bonham's Auction House.
Find out what your peers are saying about KVM vs. RHEV and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.