Hyper-V vs RHEV comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Microsoft and Red Hat are both solutions in the Server Virtualization Software category. Microsoft is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.0. Microsoft holds a 17.4% mindshare in SVS, compared to Red Hat’s 2.6% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

Hyper-V

Read 146 Hyper-V reviews

25,666 Views
22,586 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

RHEV

Read 37 RHEV reviews

4,316 Views
4,230 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

Hyper-V

RHEV

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

RHEV and Hyper-V are competing in virtualization platforms for enterprise needs, with Hyper-V often gaining preference for its feature richness and user satisfaction despite RHEV's competitive support and pricing, indicating Hyper-V's broader capabilities may justify its cost for many organizations.

Features: RHEV provides stability, open-source flexibility, and is known for low costs and straightforward migration capabilities. It supports up to 160 cores and 2 TB of RAM and is particularly efficient in Linux environments. Hyper-V offers dynamic memory allocation, seamless integration with Windows environments, and strong security protocols. It also provides advanced features like live migration and Hyper-V Replica, which enhance dynamic scalability and disaster recovery.

Room for Improvement: RHEV could benefit from improving its feature set to match competitors like VMware, offering richer third-party support, and enhancing scalability features. It might also consider enhancing its compatibility with non-Linux environments. Hyper-V could enhance its automation features, improve the ease of navigating its UI for non-Windows users, and expand its feature set for better competition against VMware's broader capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: RHEV provides a traditional Linux-oriented deployment that integrates well with existing Linux infrastructures. Users find the setup process straightforward, which benefits Linux-centric organizations. Hyper-V's deployment is more streamlined within Windows environments thanks to tight ecosystem integration, offering Microsoft users a smoother setup process and comfortable management through existing Microsoft services.

Pricing and ROI: RHEV presents an attractive pricing model with lower initial costs and good ROI especially in Linux environments. Its open-source nature makes it a cost-effective choice with competitive pricing against other virtualization options. Hyper-V might require a higher initial investment but offers considerable ROI through its advanced feature set and integration within Windows systems, suggesting that its cost is justified by its comprehensive benefits and simplified management for Windows environments.

To learn more, read our detailed Hyper-V vs. RHEV Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Hyper-V vs. RHEV

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 919,919 peers since 2012

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

Hyper-V

Ranking in Server Virtualization Software

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

146

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

RHEV

Ranking in Server Virtualization Software

12th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of Hyper-V is 17.4%, up from 15.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RHEV is 2.6%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Server Virtualization Software Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Hyper-V	17.4%
RHEV	2.6%
Other	80.0%

Server Virtualization Software

Featured Reviews

Marcelo Siqueira

Especialista de Infraestrutura at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Virtualization has improved proactive maintenance and observability for complex clustered workloads

Hyper-V could be improved in terms of performance of live migrations. I notice that in VMware, vMotion, which is the same concept as live migration, is faster than in Hyper-V. It is not that it does not work, but in terms of performance, VMware ends up being better for these virtual machine moves.I do not think there is anything else I would like to add regarding necessary improvements related to the interface, stability, or support. The interface is great and very intuitive. Support is also very quick and functional from Microsoft when a problem occurs. Once the environment is very well configured, there should not be problems in Hyper-V. The main area I would improve is mostly the performance of virtual machine migrations. If this migration performance were improved, I believe Hyper-V would reach a perfect score.

Read full review

Mike Neuliep

Linux Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees

Has supported virtualization projects in side jobs but has required workarounds due to lack of maintenance

In my opinion, the best features of RHEV are that it is a real hypervisor and it is free, so it performs better than VMware. I have used the live migration feature in the past with RHEV. There is a free clone of it that is based on the open source. Live migration is a nifty feature if your app is not highly available and you need to do maintenance on a machine. You can migrate the VM off of it, do your maintenance, and move it back when you are done. RHEV has a high availability architecture with a built-in monitoring feature where you could see machines other than the one you are operating on. I tend to implement high availability not so much in RHEV, but by using standard application high availability strategies. Red Hat has another product specifically for high availability.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is easy to configure."

"I find Hyper V useful in managing virtual machines in environments with smaller workloads."

"I think the cluster environment is a good feature of Hyper-V because, if something happens, then it will automatically move to some other mode. This is a great feature of the solution."

"It is a very stable product. We have not had any issues with Hyper-V crashing itself."

"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."

"This solution is much easier to manage than a bare metal machine. It is so easy to manage something through the virtual machine."

"The solution has an easy setup."

"The initial setup is not difficult at all. It is very easy."

More Hyper-V pros

"We are very satisfied with it."

"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 easy for us to deal with when comes to application migration and has good compatibility with multiple components."

"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable, as it is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."

"I advise keeping an open mind. It's an excellent solution."

"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."

"The solution is a great all-round product, and the virtualization is especially good."

"For the Windows side, we also initiated a digital transformation project, moving a lot of Windows applications to the container side and the open-source software side, which resulted in almost 70% savings of our past expenses."

More RHEV pros

Cons

"If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult."

"I like Admin Center, and I want to deploy it in my organization, but the role-based access control feature is limited as we have to give a complete administrative right to other users as well."

"The solution could be more stable as it is vulnerable to viruses, ransomware, and malware."

"The user interface of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required."

"P2V are not live, and there's some limitation on max hard drive space for VMs and the ability to recover VHD file space after files within the VM have been deleted."

"In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration."

"It's not completely stable because your stack becomes bloated."

"Hyper-V could be improved in terms of performance of live migrations."

More Hyper-V cons

"The solution should be made more user-friendly."

"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."

"The GUI interface needs improvement. Not 90%, but 50% or 60% of the work is done from the command line and so on, so the GUI needs work because people are looking for an easier way to manage the environment."

"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."

"You need to buy support from red hat and you need to renew support every year in order to keep getting support from red hat."

"The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."

"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."

"There are two things that I would like to see improvement in when it comes to Red Hat. First is the pricing and second is the support."

More RHEV cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product comes with Windows Server."

"Hyper-V is expensive."

"Hyper-V is included in the Microsoft Azure license for no extra cost. However, they charge for technical support calls on an hourly basis."

"This is a fairly expensive product because it balances the needs of security."

"It's not expensive."

"In terms of the licensing, if you are using Microsoft Windows 100%, it is OK. But, when you start mixing other environments, it becomes quite tricky."

"I wish the licensing was simpler, and allowed for a greater number of VM's with the Microsoft standard licensing, but overall I think it's fair. The pricing is definitely fair."

"The product is a bit expensive, but it is worth the money."

More Hyper-V pricing and cost advice

"RHEV offers pricing based on a per-physical-machine licensing model."

"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."

"We have to pay extra for vulnerability and fault tolerance."

"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."

"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."

"The solution does not require licencing but a subscription is necessary, which is very affordable."

More RHEV pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

919,919 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

Thang Le Toan (Victory Lee)

CIO at Robusta Technology & Training

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…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

University

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

10%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

Outsourcing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	70
Midsize Enterprise	37
Large Enterprise	47

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	21
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	12

Questions from the Community

How does KVM compare with Hyper-V?

KVM is better. But let's just look at the software instead of judging. Hyper-V was a free solution from Microsoft to virtualize Server or Client OS as it is a feature on Windows Server since 2008 a...

See all answers

How does Proxmox VE compare with Hyper-V?

One of the best things about Proxmox VE is that it is open-source and very inexpensive. You get all of the same features as with the more well-known products. Proxmox VE is very easy to deploy - it...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Hyper-V?

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Hyper-V is that Microsoft licensing is not cheap. However, it is very worthwhile to have this environment fully licensed once it is very w...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with RHEV?

RHEV is not improving because it has been discontinued. It has been discontinued for years. I would love to get back into RHEV, but the job market is difficult and no one is hiring. RHEV is designe...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for RHEV?

I have done some consulting where I used RHEV, taking on side jobs to run virtual machines in the financial industry for a startup. The last time I used RHEV was in my home lab, but that has been d...

See all answers

Comparisons

VMware vSphere vs Hyper-V

Compared 44% of the time

KVM vs Hyper-V

Compared 8% of the time

VMware Workstation vs Hyper-V

Compared 7% of the time

Proxmox VE vs Hyper-V

Compared 6% of the time

XCP-ng virtualization platform vs Hyper-V

Compared 2% of the time

More Hyper-V Competitors

VMware vSphere vs RHEV

Compared 16% of the time

Proxmox VE vs RHEV

Compared 13% of the time

Oracle VM vs RHEV

Compared 9% of the time

KVM vs RHEV

Compared 7% of the time

Oracle VM VirtualBox vs RHEV

Compared 7% of the time

More RHEV Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Hyper-V

October 2026

Download Hyper-V product report

Buyer's Guide

RHEV

October 2026

Download RHEV product report

Also Known As

No data available

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization

Overview

Hyper-V delivers scalability, cost-effectiveness, and seamless Windows integration with dynamic memory, live migration, and replication capabilities. Its interface and automation tools optimize resource management, enhancing operational efficiency in virtualized settings.

Hyper-V stands out for its advanced networking features, offering proactive VM replication and high availability. Simplified setup alongside built-in Powershell scripting boosts automation capabilities, while Virtual SAN Manager aids in reducing hardware investments. However, improvements are needed in cloud platform integration and operational interface to enhance user experience. Licensing costs are significant, and support for diverse OS remains limited. Networking and live migration require fine-tuning to improve performance. Despite challenges in deployment and compatibility, Hyper-V remains a preferred choice for hosting vital production servers and providing robust virtualization solutions across diverse environments.

What key features does Hyper-V offer?

Scalability: Supports flexible resource allocation for growing environments.
Seamless Windows Integration: Easily integrates with Windows-based systems.
Dynamic Memory: Efficiently manages memory allocation in real time.
Live Migration: Allows live transfer of VM workloads with minimal impact.
Hyper-V Replica: Provides robust VM replication for high availability.

What are the anticipated benefits of using Hyper-V?

Cost-Efficiency: Reduces operational costs through effective virtualization.
Resource Optimization: Efficiently utilizes existing hardware and software.
High Availability: Ensures ongoing service delivery and data protection.
Operational Efficiency: Enhances productivity with robust automation tools.

Organizations in education, finance, and IT sectors deploy Hyper-V for virtualization, using it to consolidate servers and manage infrastructures efficiently. Its integration with platforms like Microsoft Azure facilitates cloud solutions, supporting applications like SQL Server, Exchange, and Linux in diverse operational settings.

Microsoft

RHEV offers a cost-effective virtualization platform with support for up to 160 cores and 2 TB of RAM per host, emphasizing open-source accessibility and integration with applications like OpenStack.

RHEV stands out with features such as high performance, stability, ease of migration, and robust security. Its integration capabilities with diverse applications and the self-service Power user portal enhance its appeal for IT environments. While the platform's affordability compared to VMware is noted, areas for improvement include the GUI, user-friendliness, network virtualization, and the need for enhanced pricing and support in regions lacking system integrators. RHEV's ability to facilitate seamless migration from legacy systems to virtual environments is widely adopted in sectors such as government, banking, and IT services.

What are the key features of RHEV?

Open-Source Accessibility: Offers flexibility and customization options.
High Performance: Supports up to 160 cores and 2 TB of RAM per host.
Seamless Integration: Integrates well with applications like OpenStack.
Live VM Migration: Enables continuous operations without downtime.
Power User Portal: Provides self-service capabilities for users.

What benefits and ROI can users expect?

Cost Optimization: Provides a cost-effective alternative to VMware.
Scalable Computing: Allows flexible resource allocation and scaling.
Migration Efficiency: Facilitates moving from legacy systems smoothly.
Robust Security: Enhances data protection and privacy management.

RHEV is widely used in high-computing tasks like AI and big data analytics within data centers, supporting cloud solutions, AI, and ERP systems. It's implemented in privacy clouds for industries such as government, banking, and IT services to migrate workloads from physical to virtual environments and optimize operational costs.

Red Hat

Sample Customers

Large customer base from all industries, all over the world. Two major Hyper-V customers are Telefonica and EmpireCLS.

Qualcomm and Bonham's Auction House.

Buyer's Guide

Hyper-V vs. RHEV

September 2026

Free Report: Hyper-V vs. RHEV

Find out what your peers are saying about Hyper-V vs. RHEV and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

919,919 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Hyper-V 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.