TekRevue

fusion parallels virtual box

2015 VM Benchmarks: Parallels 11 vs. Fusion 8 vs. VirtualBox 5

By on at • @mggjim

We’re back with the final component of our yearly analysis of virtualization software for OS X. We’ve already looked at the recently updated offerings from Parallels and VMware, and now it’s time to compare them directly.

Today, we’ll be looking at a performance comparison of Parallels Desktop 11, VMware Fusion 8, and Oracle’s VirtualBox 5. Although Parallels and Fusion are more popular options for OS X users looking to run Windows and other x86 operating systems on their Macs, we always like to keep an eye on VirtualBox to see just how well this free open source alternative can keep up with its commercial competitors.

Part of our goal with this analysis is not to simply determine which virtualization solution is the fastest, we also want to see how they compare to “native” Windows performance on the same hardware. We’ve therefore run all applicable tests in Boot Camp as well, which gives us an idea of how close these options are to eliminating the need for something like Boot Camp altogether, at least for certain tasks.

Also new this year is the addition of a “high end” host for some tests. As we’ll describe in more detail in the next section, all of our tests were performed on 2014 15-inch MacBook Pro, a system that we consider to be in the “mid-to-high” range of Mac configurations. But we were also curious about just how well Fusion and Parallels would perform if given access to clearly “high-end” resources. We therefore ran select CPU- and GPU-focused tests on a 2013 Mac Pro, and we have those numbers available in their own dedicated section later on.

Our benchmark tests and results are divided into the sections identified below. You can browse all results in order by using the “Next” and “Previous” buttons below, or you can jump directly to a specific test using the Table of Contents, which is found at the bottom of every page. Some tests required that we cram a lot of data into a single chart, and some of these charts may be difficult to read on smaller or low-resolution screens. To see any chart in its full-sized Retina glory, just click or tap on it to load the full image.

Table of Contents

Sign Up for the TekRevue Weekly Digest

Read more in Reviews on TekRevue

  • Zero1

    Really nice review. The first that I have seen online of such sorts.
    Overall content on Tekrevue is very solid. I enjoy reading OS X tips mostly.
    Thanks guys!:)

  • http://openbiz.tevac.com/ Enrico G. Lupo

    Many thanks for this full review.
    I’m an enthusiast of fusion 8 and a user fro version 5. This last release is a great goal!

  • Henrique Tavares

    Really well made review, thank you for the excelent work!

  • Fair game

    Awesome! Review is great. Fusion is great for biz, PD 11 is good for personal/home use, use bootcamp if your windows friends bug you but you don’t need virtualization, use VitrualBox if you just need to visit the other worlds (Win/Linux), if you want something reliable go for fusion and hey if you have extra money, throw that shit at Parallel they deserve it, all good products but hey Oracle has screwed they entire industry, just like CUNYfirst, but trust me they don’t need your petty cash! Fair ‘n square.

  • JBacTee

    Any chance you could gain access to a multi-processor (read: 2 physical processor chips) Mac Pro for a similar comparison? Virtualbox has a blatant issue ( https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/12742 ) negotiating multicore setups in a multiple CPU host (experienced this myself with the dual-CPU 2008 Mac Pro), where the virtualized guest suffers a huge performance hit if you’ve set it up with more than one virtual core. Both Windows 7 & attempts at running the Windows 10 preview were so terrible I gave up trying to run them with any more than a single allocated core on the Mac Pro (whereas my i7 MacBook Pro with a single-chip 8-thread CPU can easily virtualize up to 8 cores with no evident performance hit).

    It would be worth seeing how Parallels & Fusion (or even Virtualbox, but I assume it’ll look absolutely terrible as far as performance goes) similarly act under a multi-chip host environment to see how they negotiate allocations between multiple physical chips, as opposed to threads all being sent to the same chip.

    • James Nguyen

      I had a similar problem with my MPB mid 2009. Disgusting performance when virtualizing windows 7 or 10. Did you find a solution to this problem?

  • Br. Bill

    Another thing to consider is the licensing. Yes, Virtualbox is free. Fusion gives you licenses for 3 hosts. Parallels gives you a license for one machine only. So Parallels effectively costs 3x what Fusion does, if you want to host VMs on multiple machines.

  • No Name

    Great review. Thanks for writeup.

  • Marco Schirrmeister

    Great post. I am a Fusion user since day 1 and really like it, but now that VMware has doubled the price I will stay with 7 as long as I can.

  • simmerkatt

    I think it’s unfair to include VirtualBox with Fusion and Parallels.

    You are forgetting one major thing: Fusion and Parallels are designed to integrate Windows with OS X. VirtualBox is designed to virtualise an entire machine as if it were 100% separate, no integration at all.

    • Max Coplan

      I think BootCamp and VirtualBox are the two extremes in this comparison. VirtualBox virtualizes everything, without any integration. And BootCamp has zero virtualization at all, aka complete integration.

  • wimver

    I’ve been a Parallels 9 user and was about to upgrade to VMWare Fusion 8 after reading several reviews. Also because I did not like it I had to pay to upgrade my Parallels license if I wanted to upgrade Mac OS to OS X El Captain… I don’t like this kind of “you have to”‘s. So I was holding my credit card ready in my hand, ready to pay for Fusion 8. Especially with their Parallels to VMWare upgrade offering. But I thought: let’s try it fist; so I installed the trial of Fusion 8… This was so disappointing for me… First I imported the existing Parallels virtual machine and converted it which went really smooth. But then… Starting up time: disappointing by all means. I first thought: OK, maybe VMWare tools have to be installed first; but no: even after rebooting several times: boot-up time kept on being disappointing. Then… opening a Visual Studio project: disappointing. I’m not even talking about compiling some code: very disappointing. It just took so much much much longer time then it did in Parallels 9! So now; I just upgrade to Parallels 11: I love it! Boot-up time, Visual Studio performance, … I love it. It’s even better than Parallels 9. The only thing I don’t love is that I had to upgrade. But for my point of view it’s obvious: Parallels beats VMWare Fusion.

  • Simon

    still confused which is better, according to parallels comparison http://www.parallels.com/landingpage/pd/fusion-compete/ parallels is the best, though it would be strange to see smth. else here 🙂 if you check vmware tests https://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/compare you will see another picture, but the strange thing is that both companies has different digits for the same features/options, eg. check VM capabilities, other comparisons show better results for VMware Fusion http://www.softocoupon.com/comparisons/parallels-desktop-11-for-mac-vs-vmware-fusion-8.php so which is the best?

    VM Capabilities
    VM Capabilities

  • Ryh

    I’m Parallels user for 6 years but I think I’ll switch to Fusion. With every free OS X upgrade I’m forced to upgrade Parallels for $50…

    • ceeioo

      It’s the main reason i don’t choose Parallels

  • NativeCalifornian

    I opted for VMware Fusion and ran into a problem or 2. When I tried to upgrade my W7P VM to W10 it said the graphics driver was out dated. When I tried to run SoftPlan 2016 in my W7P it wouldn’t because it got errors installing DirectX 11. I think all things being equal Fusion is a better buy especially because I don’t have to buy a new copy for each machine in my house.

  • Mike S.

    Thought I’d try out both on my Mac Pro 2013 (8-core CPU, 32gb RAM, 1tb PCIe SSD) and while both perform admirably, Parallels bested Fusion on Windows boot/startup times (as this articles mentions). For me, boot time is top priority, so Parallels was the winner for me.
    I didn’t try any hard-core games, as I don’t use the machine for that purpose. However, multiple version of Windows (XP, 7, 10) ran faster and smoother overall in Parallels for general use in my experience.
    Having said that, I had some trouble with Parallels recognizing certain USB devices that Fusion did not have trouble with. Complained about it to Parallels, and they’ve recently pushed out a new release that addressed and fix those problems, so I appreciate their customer support.
    Good article, thanks!

  • DanialThom

    This would be more useful if you outlined the tuning settings. You don’t even mention the number of cpus in the “multicore” test

    • http://www.tekrevue.com/ TekRevue

      The configuration options for the virtual machines are explicitly mentioned on the “Test Setup & Methodology” page. Quoting directly from that page:

      Each of our Parallels and Fusion Windows 10 virtual machines was configured for maximum performance, with 8 assigned virtual CPUs, 12GB of RAM (the maximum recommended amount in order to ensure that enough is reserved for OS X), and 1GB of graphics memory configured for each platform’s most advanced DirectX and OpenGL graphics support. The VirtualBox VM was also configured to its maximum supported hardware level, with matching CPU and RAM, but with only 256MB of graphics memory, the most it allows. For all platforms, all features that could possibly impact performance, such as error logging or an expanding virtual disk, were disabled.

      • Samir Abdo

        Can you use the Mac hot corners and gestures in Fusion 8?

      • daniael

        1gb graphics memory is NOT the recommended size for parallels. since you mentioned 12gb ram, then you most likely run it on a modest macbook pro with 16gb ram and mediocre video card. when it comes to 24 core cpu (2 physical processors, 6 cores each with enough L2 cache) 64+GB RAM and super fast ssd(s) and video cards with 4gb and 1500 cores, fusion is way inferior (cannot even compare). most professional places use similar machines. this does not apply to home end-users or non technical enterprises…

        • http://www.tekrevue.com/ TekRevue

          You’re a bit confused, Dan. Let me clarify for you:

          1) The exact models and specifications for the testing hardware are listed in the article, along with the methodology used for the tests. You’ll find this information on the ironically named “Test Setup & Methodology” page.

          2) We submitted our results and methodology to both Parallels and VMware to give each company a chance to respond. Neither company claimed that our testing procedure or the configuration of our virtual machines were incorrect or unfair.

          3) Other than providing licenses for both Fusion 8 and Parallels Desktop 11 for our tests, TekRevue was not remunerated by either company in any way, nor were the tests conducted or guided by anyone outside of TekRevue.

          4) These products, and our review, are primarily targeted at consumers. That’s why we used both a MacBook Pro and mid-level Mac Pro in the tests. If you’d like us to conduct future tests on your custom Mac Pro (I say “custom” because the Mac Pro you describe in your other comment — 2 x 6-core hyperthreaded 3.33GHz — is not a configuration Apple ever shipped), then please send it to us and we’ll be happy to do the additional testing. In general, however, I hope you’ll agree that your specific configuration isn’t applicable to ~99% of users.

    • daniael

      they probably ran it with default settings on a modest macbook pro

  • daniael

    i own both vmware 8 pro and parallels 11 pro, parallels is faster by far. small files, large files, medium high res, real life work (compiling, resource editing, various ide(s), git, office, etc) there is no comparison between the two, in my experience. run them in 2 machines, a macbook pro i7 2.7ghz, 1tb ssd and a mac pro 24 cores 3.33ghz, also 1tb ssd. i am not game-ing nor watching videos in vm, i do that in host machine, when i do (not often)

    • Tien Dinh

      Me too. I use Parallel desktop for years and recently switched to VMWare 8 Pro due to this article. I found the performance of VMWare 8 Pro to be unbearable. After wasting tons of time trying to determine the causes, i found that the disk performace is extremely slow compare to Parallel desktop or native boot camp speed. I’m swiching back to Parallel Desktop now.

  • Stephen

    I am really interested in understanding the performance for disk access speed to the file system when compared between virtualized machines and boot camp. I am almost certain I will get some improvement by switching from Parallels to Boot Camp, but I don’t want to go through the effort/force a change in my workflow without solid numbers.
    On my current setup it seems to take an eternity for the memory on my Windows VM to be filled with all the data it needs (I need to have a SQL server and a related application running on my Windows OS). Are there any good metrics on how long it takes for the OS to load up files from the drive into memory?
    PS: Hard drive is a traditional drive, system report describes as APPLE HDD ST1000DM003

  • Ksix

    Do you recommend one over the other for running ArcGIS software?