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
4th
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
35
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of KVM is 10.1%, down from 12.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RHEV is 3.6%, up from 2.7% 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

"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"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."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"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 superior real-time performance, which results in lower latency compared to alternatives like VMware and Microsoft."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"The biggest aspect for me is the disk usage, the virtual manager, and the deployment of machines."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"It is a scalable solution."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
 

Cons

"Although KVM meets our expectations, it can be somewhat fragmented with numerous management tools available, making it difficult to determine which tool to use."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"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."
"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."
"They could provide a more comfortable and easier-to-manage interface for the product, whether text-based or graphical. It can be challenging to manage without the support of additional tools."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"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."
"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."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"When we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is extremely cheap in China."
"We had some problems with the licensing."
"One only needs a subscription to Oracle Linux. So, it's cheaper with Oracle Linux's subscription. It is not very expensive. In short, the solution is open source, and you need only a subscription."
"This solution came with the Linux license."
"It is cheaper than other competitors like VMware or Hyper-V."
"I use KVM for free through Proxmox, which offers a free license alternative."
"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."
"I use the free version of KVM, and I'm not sure if there is a paid version."
"Its price depends on the use cases."
"We have to pay extra for vulnerability and fault tolerance."
"This is an open-source solution."
"The solution does not require licencing but a subscription is necessary, which is very affordable."
"I would say the price is acceptable."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 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
17%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Educational Organization
44%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

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: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.