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

Citrix XenServer vs RHEV comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 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

Citrix XenServer
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RHEV
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
13th
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 May 2026, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of Citrix XenServer is 4.1%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RHEV is 2.4%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Server Virtualization Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Citrix XenServer4.1%
RHEV2.4%
Other93.5%
Server Virtualization Software
 

Featured Reviews

SP
Citrix Specialist at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Support team resolves issues quickly and receives positive feedback
We can improve Citrix XenServer Performance Management in the server base by enabling CPU virtualization extensions such as Intel VT or AMD-V. We can use Paravirtualization (PV) drivers to enhance network performance. We can implement dedicated storage not shared with other applications and use thin provisioning for more efficient storage usage. Regular updates should be given to patches and hotfixes. XenCenter or web-based solutions provide better control and monitoring, which is useful for automatic tasks with PowerShell scripts. We can implement high availability and live migration with pools, along with security and backup to enable role-based access control for safer management. We can schedule VM snapshots and use VM export for backup and recovery. While Citrix Hypervisor remains a reliable virtualization platform, several areas could be improved to better meet enterprise needs. The user interface, though functional, lacks a more modern web-based experience compared to tools such as Proxmox VE or VMware vSphere. A more responsive browser-accessible interface would simplify management, especially for remote administrators. Citrix Cloud needs improved support for containerization technologies such as Docker and Kubernetes, which are essential in today's hybrid cloud environments. Backup and disaster recovery features are somewhat limited, often requiring third-party tools. Better built-in snapshot management and cloud integration would enhance usability. Community support and documentation have fallen behind compared to open-source projects such as Proxmox. More transparent development and a stronger ecosystem would greatly benefit users. The streaming licensing and feature access make Citrix Hypervisor more competitive in a growing market of free and open-source hypervisors.
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

"The solution is extremely stable."
"The core function enables multiple virtual machines to run on a single physical server. This maximizes hardware utilization and efficiency."
"I find Citrix XenServer valuable for its affordable server virtualization capabilities."
"As far as stability, I haven't had a problem; I highly recommend the product and I think it deserves good feedback as to stability."
"It is user-friendly and easy to deploy, making it an attractive option."
"I find Citrix XenServer valuable for its affordable server virtualization capabilities."
"You should try Citrix Hypervisor; you may have pain points sometimes, but if you build it and tune it well for your requirements, this solution can help you do your job in different scenarios without any problems."
"In my opinion, Xenserver provides better features for free, making it the best for home, lab, and research purposes."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The support for this solution is very good."
"They are so advanced today and so mature in what they do that they could easily give any top-notch industry leaders a run for their money."
"The solution is a great all-round product, and the virtualization is especially good."
"Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization can help to optimize their space utilization and optimize their costs."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"It is a scalable solution."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
 

Cons

"The solution would benefit from faster technical support."
"Citrix Hypervisor is expensive if you get it as a stand-alone product, so this is one area for improvement. Its price could be cheaper. We also found other areas for improvement in Citrix Hypervisor, for example, we can't use SCIM provisioning, and there are limitations to the size of the HDD. Another area for improvement is the pass-through storage, in particular the removable storage, because that also has limitations where you can't connect to the drive if it is more than one TB."
"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."
"The solution needs better backup facilities that are available for virtual machines to create servers on."
"Network management needs improvement because it is not very stable."
"Integration with other vendors and other applications could be improved."
"There's a learning curve, especially for those coming from a Microsoft background. Setting it up and managing it can introduce some complexity."
"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."
"I have found that the stability is related to the upgrade cycle. I find the cycle a little bit annoying; if the system is constantly upgrading then it is very painful in terms of the operation."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"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."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"It would be better to have more patches, especially kernel-level updates, live and online so that we can keep the business up and running during this period."
"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."
"This solution could be more secure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is open source, it's free."
"There are three editions available and I believe they are perpetual licenses."
"To subscribe to the paid version with support, it is approximately $6,000 per year."
"While it is free for small networks, the pricing is high if your network grows past a certain size."
"I am fine with their license support. What we have right now is permanent, so I don't have a problem with their license."
"The licensing is straight forward based on usage and features."
"The pricing and licensing is so important. Customers do consider the price seriously."
"There are free and paid versions. The free version is limited in features but not by time limit. The paid version has more features."
"We buy a license for commercial use, and we also use the free editions."
"I believe we pay on a yearly basis."
"The solution does not require licencing but a subscription is necessary, which is very affordable."
"Its price depends on the use cases."
"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."
"We are using the free version of Red Hat."
"I would say the price is acceptable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 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
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business29
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise18
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise12
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Citrix Hypervisor?
The core function enables multiple virtual machines to run on a single physical server. This maximizes hardware utilization and efficiency.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Citrix Hypervisor?
Licensing with Citrix XenServer is very cost-effective. Organizations save substantial money because competing solutions, such as VMware, cost double or triple. If you are using Citrix load only, t...
What needs improvement with Citrix Hypervisor?
There could be improvements in Citrix XenServer, but I cannot think of any at the moment. Overall, we are very happy with it.
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

Hypervisor
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

U.S. Army Shared Services Center, SoftLayer, Educational Services of America, Independent Bank, and SK Telecom.
Qualcomm and Bonham's Auction House.
Find out what your peers are saying about Citrix XenServer vs. RHEV and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.