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

Nutanix AHV Virtualization vs RHEV comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 6, 2024

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

Nutanix AHV Virtualization
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RHEV
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
13th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Server Virtualization Software category, the mindshare of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is 7.6%, down from 7.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RHEV is 2.9%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Server Virtualization Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Nutanix AHV Virtualization7.6%
RHEV2.9%
Other89.5%
Server Virtualization Software
 

Featured Reviews

Zack Baraci - PeerSpot reviewer
High availability and user-friendly interface enhance manageability
I primarily use the core features of Nutanix AHV Virtualization at the moment. The high availability (HA), replication, and site-to-site replication are quite useful. Additionally, the usual hypervisor management functionalities are beneficial. Nutanix AHV Virtualization delivers a system that is very manageable, with a well-designed user interface. It is easier to manage than VMware in some ways, providing a good level of interaction.
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

"This product stands out for its user-friendly interface, intuitive design, and responsive UI. It offers AVH features comparable to Nutanix but at a more cost-effective price point."
"The most valuable feature of Nutanix AHV is that it can be managed through Hyper-V, which is Microsoft's hypervisor, VMware, and Citrix XenServer."
"The setup is efficient."
"We use Prism Central, the centralized management console for AHV clusters. It allows administrators to manage multiple clusters from a single interface and provides a unified view of the entire infrastructure."
"The solution is stable."
"The entirety of the infrastructure resides in the same product, which makes it easy to troubleshoot and investigate problems."
"It has a vs switch for the people who know Linux, in case it's easier for them to use AHV than it is to use VMware."
"Using AHV, we have a built-in VR solution. It operates using a reduplication-based unique package transfer process."
"It is very stable."
"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."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"It is a scalable solution."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
 

Cons

"Adding even more integrations would be an improvement."
"Nutanix AHV Virtualization's price is very high."
"The licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
"Lacks integration with the cloud or other solutions."
"VMware does tend to have more features than AHV. It's more of the leader in this space."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in the USB mapping."
"It should focus on providing more detailed and helpful error messages. One area we'd like to see enhanced is better support for guest VMs, especially in a heterogeneous environment."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"We should improve how we manage storage domains and make more comprehensive control available through the command line."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"We hope that Red Hat can produce a paradigm edition. We are looking for paradigm computing and paradigm storage. Its scalability can be improved. It is not easy to scale, and we hope that Red Hat can provide a more scalable system. They should also provide local service and support. Our customers are looking for a good software vendor to provide professional services."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is costly. I don't think there are any extra costs in addition to the standard licensing fees of the solution."
"We don't have to pay extra for Acropolis because it is built into Nutanix."
"The setup cost for four nodes was about $200,000 (in US currency)."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that there is no licensing fee."
"AHV licensing is often included in the Nutanix HCI package."
"The licenses are perpetual, which means they don't expire. Even if we don't have support or don't renew the support service after three years, we will still be able to use the solution."
"Nutanix AHV is free."
"The licensing overall from Nutanix AHV is very good compared to other solutions."
"We are using the free version of Red Hat."
"We buy a license for commercial use, and we also use the free editions."
"We have to pay extra for vulnerability and fault tolerance."
"I would say the price is acceptable."
"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."
"This is an open-source solution."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Server Virtualization Software solutions are best for your needs.
868,759 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
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise22
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

How does Nutanix AHV compare with VMware vSphere?
To understand which is better - Nutanix AHV or VMware vSphere - you need to do a product comparison. Both products support hypervisors. However, Nutanix supports some of the most popular ones and m...
What do you like most about Nutanix AHV Virtualization?
Integration is the most valuable feature of the product.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Nutanix AHV Virtualization?
Compared to the competition, the pricing for Nutanix AHV Virtualization is reasonable. Other solutions like Citrix and VMware have seen a significant price increase, whereas Nutanix hasn't increase...
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'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?
The RHEV management plane could be improved, particularly the management interface. Something more similar to a Google, Amazon, or Azure interface might attract people to use its management interfa...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, International Speedway Corporation, SAIC Volkswagen
Qualcomm and Bonham's Auction House.
Find out what your peers are saying about Nutanix AHV Virtualization vs. RHEV and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.