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

Proxmox VE 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

Proxmox VE
Ranking in Server Virtualization Software
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
62
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 Proxmox VE is 16.1%, down from 19.3% 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 (%)
Proxmox VE16.1%
RHEV2.9%
Other81.0%
Server Virtualization Software
 

Featured Reviews

Juan Barandiaran - PeerSpot reviewer
Effortless management with robust support enhances performance and cost savings
My primary use case for Proxmox VE focuses on replacing VMware solutions and migrating to a Centric Solution for medium-sized companies. This product serves as a hypervisor in environments where performance is crucial Proxmox VE has provided performance improvements, particularly with its…
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

"The most valuable feature of Proxmox VE is the speed. Additionally, I can modify the solution if needed because it is open-source and the integration of any kind of API and monitoring is hassle-free."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."
"It allows us to create an individual VM along with the GPU for machine learning."
"The most valuable feature of Proxmox VE is its storage."
"It's been a stable solution."
"It is easier to balance loads across hypervisors if a given container or virtual machine uses more resources than its peers."
"The solution's compatibility is very good with multiple operating systems. The moving systems are very good and migration is excellent. These are the most valuable features for us."
"It is a community-based solution."
"The biggest aspect for me is the disk usage, the virtual manager, and the deployment of machines."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"I advise keeping an open mind. It's an excellent solution."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"When you purchase RHEV, you are essentially buying a subscription license. This license can be integrated with various client types, including these integrations with the subscription."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"The platform is scalable, allowing for the installation of multiple nodes."
 

Cons

"Proxmox VE can improve by importing OVF or OVA files directly from OVA. I need to convert all the images to raw images before importing them to Proxmox VE. If there is a solution that I can import directly from VMDK, it would be better."
"One issue with Proxmox is that some processes are not automatic. For some processes, you have to do it manually by command line."
"Its performance and support can be improved. Currently, there is a cost for support."
"We have only command lines for a management application to remove sites. The solution needs a proper GUI."
"The solution should include some features that can help with converting raw files into different formats. It should offer better management around raw files."
"The availability of the solution could be a bit better."
"It is difficult to remove a virtual machine."
"Currently, there are several features inaccessible through the API, necessitating the use of either the WebUI or the command line interface."
"We should improve how we manage storage domains and make more comprehensive control available through the command line."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"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."
"RHEV can improve by keeping pace with new features and new enhancements. They should not be halted or delayed innovation because over the past quarter the enhancements have not been as fast as they have been previously."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is a free open-source solution."
"The only thing you pay for is support and it is between $2,500 and $3,000 a year. It depends on the support plan you choose. Support is optional."
"Since Proxmox is open-source, it's freely available."
"The solution’s pricing is very fair."
"We are using the free community version of Proxmox VE."
"It is an open-source platform."
"Proxmox is free software, but if you prefer the support and a more rested repository then you can pay for it."
"It's very cheap."
"We are using the free version of Red Hat."
"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."
"We buy a license for commercial use, and we also use the free editions."
"I believe we pay on a yearly basis."
"RHEV offers pricing based on a per-physical-machine licensing model."
"Its price depends on the use cases."
"This is an open-source solution."
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%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
University
7%
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 Business44
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

Proxmox vs ESXi/vSphere: What is your experience?
For me the biggest impact is the cost of licensing in the case of VMware despite its overall intuitiveness and ease of handling and management. However, KVM-based Open Source solutions are becoming...
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...
Proxmox VE or KVM?
I use Proxmox VE and have been very happy with it. In my opinion, it is a complete and stable solution with excellent tools for managing servers. It has a lot of different features, and I also love...
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

Municipality of Trento, SwitchMIA, inDenova, Valmeita City Council, Alpha IT AS, Grupo Inversor Veracruzano S.A.P.I. de C.V. (GRIVER), Laut und Schoen, IT-Services - Hamburg e.K., KMI Learning, Dynacom Tankers Management Ltd., Serwise AG
Qualcomm and Bonham's Auction House.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox VE vs. RHEV and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.