Is there a clear winner between the two? VMware Fusion or Parallels? In general and specifically with their respective latest versions, Fusion 8 / Parallels 11? Want to run Windows 7 and/or 10 on my new iMac.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
VMware Fusion or Parallels?
- Thread starter MacVault
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Age old question, both have advantages and disadvantages.
I prefer Vmware's Fusion but that's it, my personal preference. I think Vmware's support is better and the product is more stable - at least the last time I compared the two.
[MOD NOTE]
I moved the thread to the application's forum as this more of an application question as opposed to help with windows/linux or any other OS.
I prefer Vmware's Fusion but that's it, my personal preference. I think Vmware's support is better and the product is more stable - at least the last time I compared the two.
[MOD NOTE]
I moved the thread to the application's forum as this more of an application question as opposed to help with windows/linux or any other OS.
I like Parallels more than VMWare with the interface but I understand why people like VMWare. It is really the standard VM product for business and I can migrate it to a Windows or Linux machine and it will work there perfectly.
I personally use VMWare Fusion. I actually tried both in evaluation/demo mode for a week. The reason I chose Fusion is because they gave me a better deal on the purchase price -- in the end, that was the only criteria I used to make the selection.
Both have their advocates (and reasons) but it is really personal preference
I use VMware Fusion and have for a long time
I have VM's for Ubuntu, Win7, Win8.1 and Win10 and can run them all at the same time with no issues on my rMBP
They both have free trials, and while it may be a pain to test them both, that is the only way you will know which suits you better
Personally, I picked one way back when and just went with it without even testing the other
You can also throw VirtualBox in the mix too...
I use VMware Fusion and have for a long time
I have VM's for Ubuntu, Win7, Win8.1 and Win10 and can run them all at the same time with no issues on my rMBP
They both have free trials, and while it may be a pain to test them both, that is the only way you will know which suits you better
Personally, I picked one way back when and just went with it without even testing the other
You can also throw VirtualBox in the mix too...
Another option is CrossOver Mac - run Windows apps without requiring a Windows OS.
I prefer is over Parallels (I own both).
Try the free CrossOver Mac trial software before deciding.
I prefer is over Parallels (I own both).
Try the free CrossOver Mac trial software before deciding.
Fusion's license at least used to let you install it on a desktop and a laptop. That made it half the cost of Parallels for me. Fusion's printing system also failed less often than Parallels. I only use it on my laptop now since the new Office came out, and only to run software for remotely controlling my DSLR on my telescope. Fusion handles USB devices and such nicely, it has not had a single issue with the camera. So, I prefer Fusion over Parallels.
Personally I have had better results with PlayOnMac(Free), but crossover is a viable option as well(or if you feel froggie, Macports + Wine works too)
If you are set on using a VM, try out Parallels, VMWare, and Virtual Box, each have pros and cons and it really depends what the software you are needing is...
Historically VMWare Fusion tend to have better raw performance (faster or less CPU burn) whereas Parallels' Desktop tend to excel in integrating your Windows apps to OS X's features. However each iteration may change the balance slightly somewhat.
However VMWare has a parallel product for Windows. Hence if you ever need to "play" a VM that someone else made, it's probably in VMWare's format and would be less hassle for you to use it.
VirtualBox is probably the least performant and less integrated player in this scene. However it's popular among web/server programmers to run development versions of their server software – mostly Linux-based – inside a self-contained VM. Moreover this is probably the most-supported VM for this purpose since it's the default setup that Docker uses when running on OS X.
However VMWare has a parallel product for Windows. Hence if you ever need to "play" a VM that someone else made, it's probably in VMWare's format and would be less hassle for you to use it.
VirtualBox is probably the least performant and less integrated player in this scene. However it's popular among web/server programmers to run development versions of their server software – mostly Linux-based – inside a self-contained VM. Moreover this is probably the most-supported VM for this purpose since it's the default setup that Docker uses when running on OS X.
Last edited:
I started withParallels, then moved to VM Fusion and haven't looked back. I agree the support seems better and have had little/no problems with VM.
I like parallels 9 and 10..actually didn't upgrade yet, but previous versions are OK. also support was great..
Not sure about VM Ware, but years ago I tried it and my VM run slow, then install Parallels and it worked just fine for me.
BTW sometime I use Boot Camp too
Not sure about VM Ware, but years ago I tried it and my VM run slow, then install Parallels and it worked just fine for me.
BTW sometime I use Boot Camp too
I use Parallels and it works very well for me, however they have a nasty habit of charging for new versions which you will need if you want to retain compatibility with new OS versions (both Mac and Windows).
I am so annoyed about this that I am considering changing.
Can anyone confirm if VM Ware also charge for new versions?
I am so annoyed about this that I am considering changing.
Can anyone confirm if VM Ware also charge for new versions?
I'm running Parallels Desktop 10 for Mac now. I haven't used Fusion for a long time. I change VM Fusion to Parallels just due to the interface if i remember correctly. I like its interface and UI.
I've used Parallels since the first version but recently switched to VMWare Fusion.
When it works, Parallels works just fine. However, I have had several experiences of 'losing' my VM images - twice after OS upgrades, and once during a disaster recovery full disk restore from Time Machine backup. Parallels worked fine, but my VM images just 'could not be found' by Parallels, meaning I had to recreate the VMs from scratch. Now, this may have been through some odd stupidity on my part, but I have 35+ years of IT experience and a fair understanding of the apps, restore and upgrade processes, etc. so my experience in this regard was not 'normal' or expected.
i have no idea if Fusion will be more robust for me going forward, but I decided I was tired of 'surprises' from Parallels.
When it works, Parallels works just fine. However, I have had several experiences of 'losing' my VM images - twice after OS upgrades, and once during a disaster recovery full disk restore from Time Machine backup. Parallels worked fine, but my VM images just 'could not be found' by Parallels, meaning I had to recreate the VMs from scratch. Now, this may have been through some odd stupidity on my part, but I have 35+ years of IT experience and a fair understanding of the apps, restore and upgrade processes, etc. so my experience in this regard was not 'normal' or expected.
i have no idea if Fusion will be more robust for me going forward, but I decided I was tired of 'surprises' from Parallels.
As others have said, in general they are so close that its a matter of subjective preference.
Only thing I will say is if you are doing Windows gaming, use a dual boot into Windows and not screw around with virtual Windows. No matter what may be advertised, virtual on the game front cannot compete with booting into Windows in the greater scheme of types of games.
As for me, I have both. I find I really don't care which one I engage as long as the software that requires Windows runs well enough. I have been familiar with VMware from the workplace so nothing about Fusion really relates all that much to make that a reason to pick Fusion over Parallels. - Just an opinion and completely subjective.
Only thing I will say is if you are doing Windows gaming, use a dual boot into Windows and not screw around with virtual Windows. No matter what may be advertised, virtual on the game front cannot compete with booting into Windows in the greater scheme of types of games.
As for me, I have both. I find I really don't care which one I engage as long as the software that requires Windows runs well enough. I have been familiar with VMware from the workplace so nothing about Fusion really relates all that much to make that a reason to pick Fusion over Parallels. - Just an opinion and completely subjective.
I have switched from Parallels to Fusion as well. Fusion is not as overloaded and feels "smoother". In the matter of performance of the guest OS they are more or less identical.
Fusion. Others have mentioned it, but I will echo: Fusion is made by VMWare. VMWare is the de facto standard when it comes to virtualization for everything from desktops to large enterprise. At the core of Fusion you are getting the same code to run your install of Windows that is used in their other products to virtualize entire datacenters.
IMO, price being equal, it just makes sense to go with the tool that is proven, trusted and backed by the a large number of industry professionals.
IMO, price being equal, it just makes sense to go with the tool that is proven, trusted and backed by the a large number of industry professionals.
To me, Parallels seems geared to integrating EVERYTHING windows has with OSX... No, I don't want that let it run self contained. I use VMWare for this reason. Also Parallels has a very sketchy history of pushing ads for upgrading into their software. Scumbag company.
"I started withParallels, then moved to VM Fusion and haven't looked back. I agree the support seems better and have had little/no problems with VM."
Me too. Also, Fusion hasn't been as bad as Parallels on update costs. Which is important to me.
Me too. Also, Fusion hasn't been as bad as Parallels on update costs. Which is important to me.
Is it possible to move virtual machines from Parallels to Fusion without having to recreate them from scratch?