Which one should I choose?

If a piece of software you are installing certifies one of them, use that one. If nothing does, the choice genuinely does not matter for day-to-day server work — both are binary-compatible with RHEL, use the same package manager and the same commands, and are actively maintained. Pick either and move on.

Which is better for cPanel or DirectAdmin?

Whichever the panel currently certifies, which is a question for the panel vendor and not for a hosting page. Certification changes between versions, so a list printed here would go stale and cost you an installer that refuses to run. Check the vendor documentation before you order.

Can I migrate an existing CentOS server to either?

Both projects provide migration tooling and both were built for exactly that purpose. Whether your specific server migrates cleanly depends on what is installed on it, so test on a fresh server before touching anything you rely on — which is a good argument for renting a cheap one for a week.

Is either one going to disappear?

Nobody can promise that about any project, and we will not pretend to. What can be said is that both have institutional backing, active maintenance and a large installed base, and that CentOS's own change is the reason people ask. If long-term certainty is critical, RHEL itself with a support contract is the answer that comes with a commitment attached.

Should I use one of these instead of Ubuntu or Debian?

Only if something points you there: software shipping RPM packages, documentation assuming dnf and SELinux, a control panel that wants a RHEL-family system, or a team that already works this way. For general-purpose hosting with no such constraint, Ubuntu has more documentation aimed at it.

Do I get full root access on both?

Yes, on every plan, whichever distribution you deploy. Root access is not conditional on the operating system here, or on the plan.

Is SELinux going to get in my way?

Sometimes, and that is true of both equally since they inherit it from RHEL. It is a genuine security feature and the temptation to disable it at the first permission error is worth resisting. If you have never used it, that is a reason to expect a learning curve — not a reason to prefer one of these two over the other.

Comparison · AlmaLinux vs Rocky Linux

Two answers to the same question, and they are very close.

Both appeared after CentOS changed its release model, both aim at binary compatibility with RHEL, both are free and actively maintained. For day-to-day server work the difference is governance and sponsorship rather than anything you will type at a prompt — so the honest advice is to let your software decide, and if it has no opinion, neither should you.

Both RHEL-compatible
Same dnf, same commands
Both free
Let your panel decide

Which One Are You? The Full Table

Either one, from

$4.95/mo

Both available at deployment on all 16 plans

Binary-compatible with RHEL
dnf, rpm, SELinux, firewalld
No licence cost on either
Not a decision worth agonising over

The Short Answer

For almost every server workload, AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux are interchangeable. Both were created after CentOS shifted its release model, both target binary compatibility with the same upstream, both use dnf and rpm, both ship SELinux and firewalld configured the RHEL way, and software packaged for RHEL installs on either without modification. The genuine differences are who governs and sponsors each project and exactly when releases land — neither of which changes a command you will type. That leaves one deciding factor worth acting on: if a control panel or a piece of enterprise software certifies one of them for the version you need, use that one. Check that at the vendor, because certification changes and a list printed on a hosting page goes stale quietly.

Both are free, RHEL-compatible CentOS successors.
Same tooling: dnf, rpm, SELinux, firewalld, systemd.
Differences are governance and sponsorship, not commands.
Deciding factor: whichever your control panel or software certifies.
Check certification at the vendor — not on a hosting page.
Both available at deployment on all 16 plans.

Which One Are You?

Notice that the first item in both columns is the same: let the software decide. If nothing certifies either, the columns really are equivalent.

AlmaLinux

Your control panel or software certifies AlmaLinux for the version you need.
You are already running it elsewhere and value consistency.
You prefer its foundation and sponsorship model.
You are migrating from CentOS and its tooling fits your path.

Widely used under cPanel/WHM deployments — but confirm current certification at the vendor rather than taking that as a rule.

AlmaLinux VPS →

Rocky Linux

Your control panel or software certifies Rocky for the version you need.
You already run it, or your team does.
You prefer its community governance model.
You are migrating from CentOS and prefer its lineage.

Founded by a co-founder of the original CentOS project. In daily use, indistinguishable from AlmaLinux.

Rocky Linux VPS →

Side by Side

Six of the eight rows are identical, and that is the finding rather than a failure of the comparison.

Side by Side
Factor	AlmaLinux	Rocky Linux
Why it exists Both answer the same question: what replaced CentOS.	Founded and initially sponsored by CloudLinux	Founded by a co-founder of the original CentOS project
Governance	Nonprofit foundation	Community foundation — the Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation
RHEL compatibility The entire point of both projects.	Binary-compatible	Binary-compatible
Package manager	dnf / rpm	dnf / rpm
SELinux, firewalld, systemd	Same as RHEL	Same as RHEL
Cost	Free	Free
Commands you will type This is the row that matters to daily work, and it is a tie.	Identical to Rocky	Identical to AlmaLinux
Control panel certification The one genuine deciding factor. Check at the vendor, not here.	Check the vendor list	Check the vendor list

The only advice on this page worth acting on: check what your control panel or enterprise software currently certifies, at the vendor's own documentation, before you deploy. Certification changes between versions, and it is the one factor that can make the wrong choice here genuinely expensive. Everything else is preference.

Three Things Worth Knowing

Neither is "the safe choice" over the other

People look for a consensus answer here and there is not one, because there is not a meaningful difference to have a consensus about. Both have institutional backing and active maintenance. Choosing on reputation alone is choosing on noise.

SELinux comes with both

Inherited from RHEL, enabled by default, and it will occasionally block something you did not expect. That is a genuine security feature and disabling it at the first permission error is the wrong instinct. If you have never worked with it, that is an argument for Ubuntu — not for one of these two over the other.

Test a migration before you commit to one

Both provide CentOS migration tooling, but whether your server converts cleanly depends on what is installed on it. Renting a cheap server for a week and rehearsing the migration is far less expensive than discovering the answer on production.

AlmaLinux vs Rocky Linux Questions

For practical purposes, yes. Both aim at binary compatibility with the same upstream, both use dnf and rpm, both ship SELinux, firewalld and systemd configured the same way. Software packaged for RHEL runs on either. The differences are governance, sponsorship and release timing — not anything you type at a prompt.

Only if something points you there — software shipping RPM packages, documentation assuming dnf and SELinux, a control panel wanting a RHEL-family system, or a team that already works this way. Otherwise Ubuntu or Debian have more documentation aimed at them. All four compared →

Either one, from $4.95.

Both available at deployment on all 16 plans, with full root access and a dedicated IPv4 — and a reinstall takes about a minute if the software you install later has an opinion.

See All 16 Plans Compare All Four Distributions