Parallels vs VMware Fusion (can we save money?)

[Edgecrusherr]

Intro​

So, with VMware Fusion Pro now being free, I wanted to do some testing to see if I can make the switch from Parallels, and save myself from having to renew my Parallels at the end of next month. I've been running Parallels on Appel Silicon since 2021, and VMware Fusion Player on Apple Silicon since they started public betas. I fully uninstalled the Player version and installed the Pro version, and decided to give it a fresh comparison. Here’s what I found…

Test Machine​

Mac Studio 2022
CPU: Apple M1 Max 10 core
RAM: 64GB
Storage: 1TB internal SSD, VMs running off a 1TB NVMe in an OWC Thunderbolt Dock
Display: LG 32UL500-W 4K

Comparisons and issues​

Parallels offers a streamline install process, while VMware is a full manual install. VMware can download the Win installer for you, but Parallels does it in a seamless way, and cleans up after itself (VMware leave the installer in your home folder).

VMware freezes on me a lot. Both VMs are set to 16GB of RAM. VMware is set to 8GB of vRAM, Parallels does some kind of unified memory for the vRAM.

Parallels has a way to auto allocate CPU cores, and assigned 8 cored to my VM. VMware requires you to manually set your cores, and warns you that anything over 4 cores may not be usable (see performance differences below). I forced VMware to 8 cores to match Parallels.

Parallels lets you attach Mac drives and folders as shares directly in the VM. I don’t see this option in VMware.

Scrolling is bit jittery on VMware

Bluetooth didn’t work AT ALL with VMware. I searched around online, and see others having the same issue. Bluetooth sharing is turned on, so it’s likely a bug. I was able to get my Xbox Series controller working via USB. Parallels picks up the Bluetooth with no issues.

VMware makes the some of the display elements tiny when you install VMware Tools (you have to disable the retina option, or go in a tweak Windows more). I don’t believe Parallels does this, but it’s been awhile since.I setup a fresh Win 11 VM in Parallels. Also, VMware keeps switching Windows back to 200% on me, even though I’d set it to non-retina and 100%.

VMware had some input issues here and there, too.

I played some Injustice. VMware stuttered often, but Parallels rarely did.

Benchmarks​

Some notes:

• When testing, I quit everything, but the Parallels or VMware.
• I’m running the latest versions of Windows 11, Parallels, and VMware.
• The VMware install of Windows 11 is a fresh install, the Parallels one has been in use since 2021, when I originally set it up on an M1 Mac mini, and moved it to my Mac Studio last year. So, the Parallels VM has some bloat that the VMware one doesn’t have.
• I ran all test a 3 times, and picked the best score. They were al close, so there wasn’t any fluke high scores.

Geekbench 5

Parallels: 1524 (single-core) / 8715 (multi-core)

VMware: 1474 (single-core) / 8680 (multi-core)

*Parallels shows 8 CPU / 8 cores, while VMware shows 1 CPU, 8 Cores. Pretty much the same thing in the end, though, but notable.
*Parallels and VMware show different clock speeds. See note at the end.
*I wasn’t happy with their upgrade pricing, so I haven’t upgraded to ver 6.
*Geekbench shows no compatible compute device within both VMs.


Unigen Haven

Parallels: 81.0 fps / 2039 score

VMware: 74.1 fps / 1867 score

*Unigen shows different CPU speeds (see note at the end) and different vRAM, not sure why.



Warhammer: Dawn of War III Performance Test

Parallels: 2.22 min fps / 63.30 max fps / 30.55 average fps

VMware: 31.04 min fps / 60.22 max fps / 42.24 average fps

*VMware got 3 more frames at its max, its min was pretty bad, and overall average are about 10-12 fps less.

Conclusion​

Overall, Parallels is the winner. It just edges out over VMware in performance (with the exception of 3 more frames in Dawn of War III), feels more stable, and the lack of Bluetooth in VMware is a major killer for me.

Also, after looking at everything, I realized that VMware must use the efficiency cores either first, or just for the sake of reading the VM specs, whereas Parallels uses the performance cores. This is the only way I can see why there's different reported clock speeds (the performance cores are 3.2GHz, and the efficiency cores should be 2.1GHz, but 2.0GHz is close).

That being said, free is free, and while I have about 19 VMs in Parallels, if VMware can fix Bluetooth, and catch up to Parallels a little more, I’ll seriously consider moving to VMware next year (I don’t think it’s worth it to me this year).

If you can’t afford to pay for (or justify the price) Parallels, have very basic needs, or don’t really care about getting the most performance, VMware Fusion Pro for free is the way to go. If you need to get the best, don’t want to deal with little stupid bugs, and don’t care about Bluetooth (the Bluetooth issue may not affect everyone), go with Parallels.


Let me know what you think, and if you've found anything different than I have.

 

[apostolosdt]

Nice and detailed report, thank you. I only run Parallels, so I can’t say much. Money is money but I prefer the trustworthy environment of Parallels.

 

[Edgecrusherr]

Nice and detailed report, thank you. I only run Parallels, so I can’t say much. Money is money but I prefer the trustworthy environment of Parallels.

Thanks! Yeah, I'm in the same boat right now. If they can get it VMware on ARM a little more mature, then I'll make the switch. I'm hoping by next year, however, I'm not so sure, as they keep getting acquired by other companies, and the Mac business isn't a big moneymaker for them. It will be a great option for anyone who doesn't do anything serious VM-wise, or anyone who doesn't use it enough to justify the cost of Parallels.

 

[iStorm]

I think another thing to add is that Parallels has Coherence mode (and can launch Windows apps right from the Mac's dock), which I think is pretty neat/useful. VMWare has Unity mode, but it's not supported on Apple silicon Macs. It's supported on Intel Macs though. Another thing is that shared folders are only supported on Intel Macs. (There's a chart comparing the Fusion Pro feature parity between Intel and Apple silicon here.) I'd be really interested if VMWare/Broadcom has any plans to bring these features over to Apple silicon, and when. They say development for Apple silicon is an ongoing project.

I tried the free trial of Parallels few months ago and was planning on eventually buying it. I agree that it's the better product, but I'm on the fence now that Fusion Pro is free. I'm not entirely a fan of Parallels' subscription model and not sure if it's worth $120/year for me. I know you can do a one-time purchase, but that only applies to the Standard Edition; I'd want want the Pro Edition. Plus, even if I were to do the one-time purchase option, I'd likely still need to pay every year anyway to get the new version that works with the latest macOS version.

 

[Edgecrusherr]

I think another thing to add is that Parallels has Coherence mode (and can launch Windows apps right from the Mac's dock), which I think is pretty neat/useful. VMWare has Unity mode, but it's not supported on Apple silicon Macs. It's supported on Intel Macs though. Another thing is that shared folders are only supported on Intel Macs. (There's a chart comparing the Fusion Pro feature parity between Intel and Apple silicon here.) I'd be really interested if VMWare/Broadcom has any plans to bring these features over to Apple silicon, and when. They say development for Apple silicon is an ongoing project.

I tried the free trial of Parallels few months ago and was planning on eventually buying it. I agree that it's the better product, but I'm on the fence now that Fusion Pro is free. I'm not entirely a fan of Parallels' subscription model and not sure if it's worth $120/year for me. I know you can do a one-time purchase, but that only applies to the Standard Edition; I'd want want the Pro Edition. Plus, even if I were to do the one-time purchase option, I'd likely still need to pay every year anyway to get the new version that works with the latest macOS version.

That's, great point about Coherence mode. I personally don't use it, so I didn't think about it, but I now people love it.

I'm honestly worried that Broadcom is going to just let it languish, which is maybe why they've made it free. VMware for Mac was very competitive until the company was bought by a Chinese investment firm (or whatever it was), a few years back. I'm certain that Broadcom bought VMware for vSphere and Workstation, as those are huge and profitable products, while Fusion is small and likely an afterthought. I'm sure there are people woking at VMware that are passionate about Fusion, and the company probably cared about the Mac before it was acquired previously, but it's pretty much just been minimum effort at this point, and it seems that the resources it takes to properly port it over to Apple Silicon has been more than they've been willing to invest. That being said, I too am hoping that Broadcom gives it new life.

The pricing for Parallels is awful. They know they own the market on the Mac at this point, so now they can bleed us dry. On top of that, Apple updates the OS yearly, so if you don't get the subscription, you're likely going to need to buy the new version every 2-3 years anyway. Plus, with the switch to Apple Silicon, there's a lot of new stuff for them to put behind a subscription pay wall each year. Anyway, keep an eye out for sales though. I don't think I've ever paid full price for Parallels. Plus, every year when it's time to renew, if I let it laps a few days, they usually send me a discount to get me to "come back".

 

[maflynn]

I have found these past few years (many?) that Vmwre was slow to update Fusion and it typically lagged behind features of what Parallels offered. Performance wise, Parallels always seemed to exceed that of Fusion.

Finally, do you trust Broadcom to keep the licensing free, they've made moves to further monetize the product, in ways that have largely angered their entire install base. Plus you get what you pay for, if Vmware as slow before in updating Fusion, I think it may be down right glacially now

 

[BayouTiger]

The truly ironic thing is that virtualization software has gone backwards as they have tried to chase the gamers that will never be a viable use case. Parallels was key to my moving back to a Mac in 2006 as I could finally run the software needed in my business. Much of this was not terribly demanding, but irreplaceable for work.

When Fusion was first released, it was far less invasive than Parallels and worked much better with things like external drives and other hardware like USB interfaces. It seemed like Parallels was still chasing the home/gamer market.

When I moved my servers to VM's Fusion, it became even more important as I could move VM's directly from Fusion on my Mac to WorkStation on my PC to ESXi on my servers. It was a magic bullet that allowed me ultimate platform anonymity.

Unfortunately, over the years it got more and more bloated and while I was still able to run applications like Revit it got slower and slower. It seemed like it lost the ability to manage memory well.

I went back to Parallels and it had certainly caught up with Fusion, but under the ARM implementation, it was still not a usable solution. I moved from a MBP over to a Thinkpad X1Nano, and never looked back for my business use.

Now that I am retired I no longer need those apps and have returned to my Mac laptop but I will say that the X1Carbon is still the laptop that I wish Apple would build.

 

[Edgecrusherr]

I have found these past few years (many?) that Vmwre was slow to update Fusion and it typically lagged behind features of what Parallels offered. Performance wise, Parallels always seemed to exceed that of Fusion.

Finally, do you trust Broadcom to keep the licensing free, they've made moves to further monetize the product, in ways that have largely angered their entire install base. Plus you get what you pay for, if Vmware as slow before in updating Fusion, I think it may be down right glacially now

Very true, Parallels has always gone after home/gamers, and VMware was business minded. It's a shame when companies keep getting bought up, they tend to lose their vision/soul. The competition between the 2 apps kept them moving forward, too. Now we don't really have that.

 

[Edgecrusherr]

The truly ironic thing is that virtualization software has gone backwards as they have tried to chase the gamers that will never be a viable use case. Parallels was key to my moving back to a Mac in 2006 as I could finally run the software needed in my business. Much of this was not terribly demanding, but irreplaceable for work.

When Fusion was first released, it was far less invasive than Parallels and worked much better with things like external drives and other hardware like USB interfaces. It seemed like Parallels was still chasing the home/gamer market.

When I moved my servers to VM's Fusion, it became even more important as I could move VM's directly from Fusion on my Mac to WorkStation on my PC to ESXi on my servers. It was a magic bullet that allowed me ultimate platform anonymity.

Unfortunately, over the years it got more and more bloated and while I was still able to run applications like Revit it got slower and slower. It seemed like it lost the ability to manage memory well.

I went back to Parallels and it had certainly caught up with Fusion, but under the ARM implementation, it was still not a usable solution. I moved from a MBP over to a Thinkpad X1Nano, and never looked back for my business use.

Now that I am retired I no longer need those apps and have returned to my Mac laptop but I will say that the X1Carbon is still the laptop that I wish Apple would build.

I've be happy if Apple could add one stinkin' USB-A port to the MacBook Pro, so I don't have to look for a dongle or adaptor every time I have to use something USB-A (which is at least once a week). When they dropped the floppy, it was an old format that wasn't seeing any reasonable growth or change, and went away pretty quickly. However USB-A is here to stay for at least another 10 years, and is still being developed and updates, even is USB-C is better.

 

[Edgecrusherr]

FYI for anyone using Parallels to host older Mac OS on Intel, they will be removing support for macOS 10.5 to 10.8 (also, Oracle Solaris virtual machines) in the next minor update. I have all of these on my Intel Mac Pro VM host, so I'll be skipping future updates.

 

[seggy]

I have found these past few years (many?) that Vmwre was slow to update Fusion and it typically lagged behind features of what Parallels offered. Performance wise, Parallels always seemed to exceed that of Fusion.

Finally, do you trust Broadcom to keep the licensing free, they've made moves to further monetize the product, in ways that have largely angered their entire install base. Plus you get what you pay for, if Vmware as slow before in updating Fusion, I think it may be down right glacially now

We're paying through the nose for our VSphere etc subscriptions (I think it went up 6x in a year if I'm not mistaken, and we need it and don't feel like moving to a more half-baked solution like Hyper-V so we're paying for it, but we are moving ahead with plans to not need local virtualisation in the near future) so they're definitely getting money from people who need VMWare products. But as on-prem virtualisation becomes less important it'd be interesting to see how they continue to monetise it. That's an even bigger issue for Parallels no doubt.

Personally, I prefer Fusion and have had it installed for years as if anything remotely power hungry was required I'd actually run whatever workload on a physical PC with a proper OS instead of virtualising it on a consumer-grade Mac, and the VM's are easily portable between Fusion and Workstation. Most of this has been for personal use so I've moved the licensing over to the free tier (except I renewed my annual Workstation maintenance just before the news dropped, madge) so it's all good for me so far.

But it's weird how they made Fusion/Workstation free for personal use after yanking free ESXi use for homelabs - maybe their metrics showed too many actual businesses using the free tier, kind of like a Teamviewer situation, but any enthusiast goodwill that comes with being able to use Fusion/Workstation for free is nixed by ESXi no longer being free.

 

[maflynn]

so they're definitely getting money from people who need VMWare products

Oh no question, I won't pretend to be expert on this, but it seems Broadcom's move is incredibly short sighted. They'll be able to reap a profit with these pricing changes, but it may be short lived and more and more companies jump ship. I have no idea how hard it will be to leave. I'm betting VMWare's competitors are stepping up their game to entice customers to leave

As I read the various tech sites, it seems that VMWare is shedding business, with a poor reputation, high price, its unlikely they'll be attracting new customers and they're losing a lot of existing customers - not a good move at all

VMware may have lost a 24,000 license customer
I'm leaving VMware soon
1 in 5 VMware customers plan to jump off its stack next year
VMware 10X Price Increase Leaves Companies Looking for Alternatives

 

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Parallels 19 vs VmWare 3.5 Windows 11 2D Graphics (Passmark)

 

[Edgecrusherr]

View attachment 2384938View attachment 2384939
Parallels 19 vs VmWare 3.5 Windows 11 2D Graphics (Passmark)

Ouch lol.

 

[Edgecrusherr]

We're paying through the nose for our VSphere etc subscriptions (I think it went up 6x in a year if I'm not mistaken, and we need it and don't feel like moving to a more half-baked solution like Hyper-V so we're paying for it, but we are moving ahead with plans to not need local virtualisation in the near future) so they're definitely getting money from people who need VMWare products. But as on-prem virtualisation becomes less important it'd be interesting to see how they continue to monetise it. That's an even bigger issue for Parallels no doubt.

Personally, I prefer Fusion and have had it installed for years as if anything remotely power hungry was required I'd actually run whatever workload on a physical PC with a proper OS instead of virtualising it on a consumer-grade Mac, and the VM's are easily portable between Fusion and Workstation. Most of this has been for personal use so I've moved the licensing over to the free tier (except I renewed my annual Workstation maintenance just before the news dropped, madge) so it's all good for me so far.

But it's weird how they made Fusion/Workstation free for personal use after yanking free ESXi use for homelabs - maybe their metrics showed too many actual businesses using the free tier, kind of like a Teamviewer situation, but any enthusiast goodwill that comes with being able to use Fusion/Workstation for free is nixed by ESXi no longer being free.

Yeah, I think Broadcom / VMware are going to push towards the remote VM subscription mode even harder, as it more profitable, and possibly slowly phase out on device virtualization.

 

[MrGimper]

I run Fusion and have regularly gone over to Parallels to test the water to see if it's worth the money. Parallels is clearly and noticeably better in every aspect but their licencing sucks. The pain could be reduced somewhat if one licence could be used on many, or even 2 machines, but nope. Also subscriptions suck, a lot. I wonder (and hope) they do something to counter Fusion Pro being free now, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Parallels Pro 20.1 vs VmWare Fusion Pro 13.6 comparison.
CPU is the same, graphics are way better in Parallels but I don't understand the higher total bechmark score of Fusion Pro. This is only a benchmark, in real world Parallels feels much faster.
Parallels

Fusion

 

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Is there anyone who can post the results from Passmark Performance test on his Mac? Especially an M4 Max or M4 Pro?

 

[Edgecrusherr]

Is there anyone who can post the results from Passmark Performance test on his Mac? Especially an M4 Max or M4 Pro?

Thanks for running tests. I'm not sure how PassMark weights the results, but I have a feeling the overall score is affected by 2 things:

1) The higher disk score on VMware (which may just be due to better code writing on VMWare's part, or possibly something random in the VM itself).

2) (what I think is really throwing it off) Not having a 3D score on the VMware test may have thrown off the total score calculating. For example, if I do a standard average of each number set, Parallels has 5 scores added together, then divided by 5, I get 11061.74; VMware has 4 scores added together, then divided by 4, I get 14095.7. If I do Parallels' average, but skip the 3D score, I get 13018.325. So, simply having 5 data points vs 4, throws off the whole calculation. Again, I'm just guessing here, as I'm not sure how PassMark weighs everything, but not completing all 5 tests may throw it off, and could be a BIG oversight on PassMark's part. I'm not near my Mac Studio to test this myself, but if Passmark lets you skip the 3D Graphics Mart for Parallels, you could try that and see if it gets a better score.