No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Hyper-V vs RHEV comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
37
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of Hyper-V is 18.6%, up from 14.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RHEV is 2.4%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Server Virtualization Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Hyper-V18.6%
RHEV2.4%
Other79.0%
Server Virtualization Software
 

Featured Reviews

Marcelo Siqueira - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Mike Neuliep - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"VMware virtualization is our main solution, but we use Hyper-V because of the licensing and the cost-effective solution, and on the remote offices we only have fewer than 10 servers."
"Hyper-V provided freedom to spin up development and test environments, and as projects were created, an environment could be created and applied."
"The solution is highly scalable."
"It is familiar, it's very comfortable with Windows, and I can configure it easily, with no hassle."
"Live Migration in a virtual machine where you can move across your Hyper-V physical servers with or without user interaction, and in a virtual machine you can move from server to server without downtime."
"The flexibility and API are the most valuable features. It helps us be able to integrate with other systems and then push data easily."
"We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization, and we initially set up 54 servers and three SANs."
"The most valuable feature is that it's an end-to-end solution."
"Performance and security are key advantages of RHEV."
"For any application that requires 100% uptime, 100% of data accessibility, I use these servers."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It is very stable."
"Technical support for RHEV is very fast and good."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
 

Cons

"The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement."
"Many vendors, such as Cisco and HPE, are discontinuing support for Hyper-V as they believe it does not have a significant market share."
"However, we have had some problems with more complicated issues taking a long time to be fixed."
"Hyper-V's management platform falls short in terms of scalability, especially when handling multiple Hyper-V servers. VMware has a central console to pull in all your VM servers, so you can easily manage them all through one console. You can manage servers in Hyper-V's admin centers, but it's not as scalable. It's doable with a couple of Hyper-V servers, but it becomes harder to manage when you get over two or three Hyper-V servers."
"Today, most backup tools and others prefer VMware. Hyper-V should ensure the features of VMware are covered within its platform."
"One of the network problems I face is I cannot introduce other security layers on top of Hyper-V as you can in VMware. When it comes to the network the VMware is more flexible than Hyper-V."
"It would be nice if it was turned into its own product because that's the problem with it. It doesn't have a single place where you can manage things. You have to go into all different screens to be able to configure it. And then you have no idea what the performance is. It's really just a feature added to Windows, and Microsoft does not really have anything that pulls it all together well. Compared to VMware, it does not have everything collaborate on one screen."
"Traditional architecture, such as converged infrastructure, should be done away with."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
"Load balancing not very efficient and fails to utilize and distribute network resources."
"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."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"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."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We rent our licenses for this solution, which means that we also have access to premium-level support. The rental cost is payable annually and includes a number of products that work with this solution. It also allows us to run unlimited virtual machines without needing a license for each one."
"We previously used VMware, but we switched because Hyper-V is cheaper and delivers the same stability for less money."
"I think it is expensive. I think if they want it to be more competitive, they should lower the price."
"Licensing needs to be a lot easier to manage with Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware is easier."
"Once we bought the datacenter version of the server, we did away with worrying about the cost of licensing our VMs separately"
"Thanks to our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, Hyper-V is free for us."
"There is a license required for this solution. I would recommend purchasing the support."
"I do not have any comments about pricing or licensing of the product."
"We are using the free version of Red Hat."
"RHEV offers pricing based on a per-physical-machine licensing model."
"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."
"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."
"I would say the price is acceptable."
"Price-wise, RHEV is okay, in my opinion."
"I believe we pay on a yearly basis."
"We have to pay extra for vulnerability and fault tolerance."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.
912,022 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VL
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…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
University
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business70
Midsize Enterprise37
Large Enterprise47
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise12
 

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...
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Hyper-V?
I think regarding price and license for Hyper-V, it is affordable.
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?
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...
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...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
 

Overview

 

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.
Find out what your peers are saying about Hyper-V vs. RHEV and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
912,022 professionals have used our research since 2012.