We performed a comparison between KVM and RHEV based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"Very cost-effective."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"KVM is stable."
"I like that it's easy to manage. It's also more powerful when it comes to security than others. That point of view is the one consideration. The other consideration is that it's cost-effective."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"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."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"It's a scalable solution."
"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."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"The solution is stable."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"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."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"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."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"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."
"One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines."
"Technical support could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an improved user interface and dashboard. This type of improvement will make it easy or help our engineers understand the solution from a requirement point of view."
"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."
"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."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"This solution could be more secure."
"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."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"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."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 10 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 9 reviews. KVM is rated 7.6, while RHEV is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Reduces OpEx and is easy to maintain, along with low memory usage and a minimal interface". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RHEV writes "An enterprise-level virtualization platform". 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, Oracle VM, Hyper-V 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.
