We performed a comparison between Citrix Hypervisor and KVM 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."The solution is easy to deploy. It's very easy to understand problems and read logs."
"The solution is extremely stable."
"The support for this solution is phenomenal."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is very fast. It also works very well for physically small servers."
"The price is the solution's most valuable feature."
"We can easily migrate VMs from one host to another."
"It is quite flexible and rugged. It is also easy to understand and user-friendly. It is not as complicated as some of the other solutions. It has its technicalities, but it is easy to understand. You can easily pick up in a short period of time and understand how to manage the infrastructure."
"Citrix Hypervisor does a great job overall, such as the virtualization of the host. It's very easy to manage the virtual machine, to create, and configure high availability."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"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."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"I think nine out of the ten supercomputers in the world use Linux KVM, so I think that attests to the fact that it is a scalable product."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"The built-in networking features are a little limited."
"Network management needs improvement because it is not very stable."
"I think the technical support could be better."
"It needs to have a more robust backup solution."
"Citrix could provide more tools to help the client manage the solution because we need to build our own tools in some cases. Everything is available through PowerShell, but then you need to build your own scripts to do the more advanced work."
"It needs improvement with the security features."
"There's a learning curve, especially for those coming from a Microsoft background. Setting it up and managing it can introduce some complexity."
"There are several areas that need improvement including the stability of the networking stack and networking management."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"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."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"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."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
Citrix Hypervisor is ranked 8th in Server Virtualization Software with 46 reviews while KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews. Citrix Hypervisor is rated 8.2, while KVM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Citrix Hypervisor writes "Allows us to allocate CPU, memory, storage, and network resources across VMs and minimizes downtime in case of hardware failure or maintenance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". Citrix Hypervisor is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and IBM PowerVM. See our Citrix Hypervisor vs. KVM 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.
