Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

KVM vs RHEV comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 12, 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
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
34
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of KVM is 11.2%, down from 12.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RHEV is 3.9%, up from 2.4% 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

"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"It is very stable."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
 

Cons

"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"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."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"Although KVM meets our expectations, it can be somewhat fragmented with numerous management tools available, making it difficult to determine which tool to use."
"I believe KVM offers a unified answer, while ProxMark addresses orchestration. KVM lacks orchestration. If the aim is to centrally oversee multiple KVMs – let's say to freeze them – a centralized management solution is absent."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"This solution could be more secure."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"I heard that there are big differences between Red Hat eight and seven, but it's still quite difficult for me to judge it. I found it a bit more difficult to manage than version seven, which was much easier. In term of features, though, it is still not yet clear which is better. I have no clear idea of which features need to be changed at the moment."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is extremely cheap in China."
"The tool is free."
"It is free for everyone."
"This solution is an open-source, free platform with paid support."
"KVM is an open-source solution."
"KVM is an open-source product that works well for us."
"KVM is priced reasonably."
"KVM is free."
"RHEV offers pricing based on a per-physical-machine licensing model."
"This is an open-source solution."
"Price-wise, RHEV is okay, in my opinion."
"The solution does not require licencing but a subscription is necessary, which is very affordable."
"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."
"Its price depends on the use cases."
"I would say the price is acceptable."
"I believe we pay on a yearly basis."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.
831,020 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
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Educational Organization
52%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
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 should be more affordable and available. It should target companies, especially new ones, that need servers with capacities of around 518+ units. It should be priced appropriately because it mig...
What needs improvement with RHEV?
We should improve how we manage storage domains and make more comprehensive control available through the command line. RHEV needs to consider those points that can be integrated. The REST API shou...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

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: January 2025.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.