HashiCorp Vagrant vs. VMware Fusion

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
HashiCorp Vagrant
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Vagrant is a tool designed to create and configure lightweight, reproducible, and portable development environments. It leverages a declarative configuration file which describes all software requirements, packages, operating system configuration, and users.N/A
VMware Fusion
Score 7.2 out of 10
N/A
Vmware Fusion is a virtual user session software built to run Windows applications on Macintosh to run any Windows applications.N/A
Pricing
HashiCorp VagrantVMware Fusion
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
HashiCorp VagrantVMware Fusion
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
HashiCorp VagrantVMware Fusion
Considered Both Products
HashiCorp Vagrant
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Docker has a few advantages, especially with the disk size bloat brought on by Vagrant's hosting an entire OS and project in a VM. It relies on native tools, however, and may not support every software.
Vagrant provides uniformity, efficiency and repeatability within team work …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Fast[er] to implement than Docker. Even consuming a lot of resources, consume less resources than Docker. Cheaper than Azure, since [it] is free.
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
I liked lando better because lando seemed extremely easy to setup compared to other VM's and it seemed faster though that project was simpler. Virtualbox I ran on windows and it has a gui and has often been slow. The vagrant boxes I used did well but had slightly more …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Docker feels lighter, faster, but Vagrant offers better support across platforms, which is a must in my company where there are users on Linux, Mac OS and Windows.
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Virtualbox and VMware were easier products to set up but did not stack up against Vagrant with the customization and the ability to specifically test and work with our code base. Virtualbox and VMware were more generic solutions that may be easier but they did not fulfill the …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
MAMP is a much simpler solution than Vagrant. Pretty much anyone should be able to get MAMP up and running quickly, and it's much easier to maintain. However, MAMP is fairly limited to specific versions of software and runs within macOS, so it won't always completely be an …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Previously I had used MAMP and DesktopServer. MAMP was constantly giving me MySQL problems and is frustrating in that it limits how many installs you can have. DesktopServers was a little better, but broke when i switched to High Sierra OSX. Their website and support were very …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
I like Vagrant much more than Docker. In my opinion it's easier and more flexible to configure a Vagrant machine how i like it compared to Docker. Of course Docker executes faster, but with Vagrant only the machine creation or booting process is slower, normally you don't …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
There's not much that I'm aware of that really does exactly what Vagrant does. Many of its tasks could be accomplished manually or via custom scripts. However, with Vagrant, automation is within easy grasp as well as a large community of experts who have pre-built solutions …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Vagrant is a little different than other options out there. It blurs the lines between the server environment and the local environment. Options like MAMP and XAMPP allow a developer to run a local version of Apache, MySQL and PHP locally, but it's all based on the local …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Vagrant is more of a meta-tool compared to traditional VM software. It provides a layer on top of VMware or VirtualBox. Configurations in a Vagrantfile are so much easier to manage than complete VMs.
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
In comparison to Docker, Vagrant is a lot easier to create its [containers] boxes, than it is with Docker. Our company already dealt with and its devops team knew somewhat well the way of Vagrant, so it was quite natural to go Vagrant when trying to choose which would be our …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
By default Vagrant uses VirtualBox but compared to using VirtualBox directly, I've found using Vagrant makes things easier. For one, you can commit your Vagrant configuration to GitHub and manage changes that way. I'm not sure how you'd handle updated virtual machines to all …
VMware Fusion
Chose VMware Fusion
Oracle virtualbox has not reason to exist anymore, considering VMware Fusion pro is free for personal and not business use. I think VMware Fusion is better in every aspect. Parallels it's a great alternative, especially if you need only windows. If you need also linux Fusion is …
Chose VMware Fusion
As mentioned previously, perpetual licensing was the #1 reason. The interface is also cleaner, simpler, and less bloat. Parallels also seem to run a bit slower. Fusion was also more stable and significantly faster in both raw performance and graphics compared to Virtualbox. …
Chose VMware Fusion
  • GitHub and Bitbucket are both used by our company for code sharing and are much easier to use for collaborative source code versioning. We internally use GitHub and have some clients who use BitBucket. In some cases, we have software projects that are very hard to configure, …
Chose VMware Fusion
I've heard of other/competitive software but frankly once I tried VMware, I never looked back. There is absolutely nothing that I need that this product does not deliver. It's fast, effective and seems to be extremely durable and reliable. My only concern (and minor) might have …
Chose VMware Fusion
VMWare Fusion is easier to deploy and manage than Parallels and also has a much simpler and less expensive licensing system. For us these are win-win.
Chose VMware Fusion
To be fair, with other products, if pricing was a problem for the organization, I would choose VirtualBox, because it works very well on Mac environment and it has most of the features that VMware Fusion has. However, I personally like the way I can run my Microsoft Windows …
Chose VMware Fusion
I have only used VMware Fusion, but I selected it compared to its competitors because of the reviews I read and the demos I saw. My decision was based on these factors: (1) reliability - this app is very stable; (2) simultaneous environments - some competitors require you to …
Chose VMware Fusion
As Hyper-V is Windows specific product, and primarily designed for Windows Server, it is difficult to compare Fusion and Hyper-V as they cater to different customer needs.

Comparing Fusion to Parallels is a bit more complicated as they are extremely similar products. Briefly, …
Chose VMware Fusion
VM Fusion is a leader. It has more functionality and capability for workstation virtualization application. Its unity view and resource management of virtual guests is far superior to any other Mac workstation virtualization applications on the market.
Chose VMware Fusion
If you only need to run a single Windows VM for a handful of applications and do not need to do testing or run multiple operating systems, Parallels Desktop may be the better choice, especially for less technical end users. Parallels is a bit more user friendly. If you need …
Chose VMware Fusion
VMware Fusion works much better for us because of the migration capabilities. We use VMware Vsphere and the migration/conversion is seamless. Some of the other virtualization application do not covert or migrate VMs onto other platforms as easily.
Chose VMware Fusion
I personally have used just about every brand of virtualization software from Virtualbox for Windows, Hyper-v for Windows, KVM for Linux, and VMWare for Windows. Personally my favorite is KVM for Linux because it is lightweight and very fast, but as far as virtual machines go, …
Chose VMware Fusion
As far as I know, VMWare is the only solution that really did what we used it for.
Chose VMware Fusion
VMware fusion is very similar to Parallels but is lower priced, so its my preferred solution for running Windows on a macintosh computer. Vmware is also made by a much more well known company with a large support staff in place, so getting help with vmware fusion is always …
Chose VMware Fusion
Fusion seems to run better than Parallels. It also is much more user friendly and intuitive to use.
Chose VMware Fusion
I actually think it's almost exactly the same as VirtualBox. VirtualBox I used for hosting a Linux distribution, and I think that there are inherently more problems to configuring a Linux distribution than there are to a Windows virtual machine, so mostly my issues were due to …
Chose VMware Fusion
VMware Fusion stacks up against VirtualBox. I selected VMware Fusion for its easy to use UI and clear steps available and documentation available online. It is also a popular tool, so to get an exposure to this tool, I opted to learn about it by myself. Also, there are many …
Chose VMware Fusion
Virtual Box is a free option, so WMware Fusion is more robust and I'd say more reliable. It's also more appropriate for handling more complex VM setups.
Chose VMware Fusion
Speed and reliability. Easier to use Frequent updates
Chose VMware Fusion
All of this changes from year to year, too. Parallels and VMware both require that you buy an annual license every year to get updates that pack in performance gains and feature improvements. These annual updates are great in theory, but they’re not cheap, and they come every …
Best Alternatives
HashiCorp VagrantVMware Fusion
Small Businesses
IBM Terraform
IBM Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
Parallels RAS
Parallels RAS
Score 9.5 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.1 out of 10
Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure
Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure
Score 8.9 out of 10
Enterprises
Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.1 out of 10
Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure
Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure
Score 8.9 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
HashiCorp VagrantVMware Fusion
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
5.5
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
HashiCorp VagrantVMware Fusion
Likelihood to Recommend
If you're writing software, particularly software that depends on other services (web servers or databases for example) then Vagrant is great. I know some people skip Vagrant and just set up virtual machines on their own, but I've found that Vagrant streamlines the process nicely and makes it easy to update or swap out versions. If you're a web developer (which I am) it's amazing. I can have several boxes configured for my different projects and I just spin them up or down based on what I'm working on. One scenario where this might not be ideal is if you're running Vagrant on a computer that has limited resources. Since you're running a virtual machine with its own operating system and such you'll want a host computer with enough RAM, hard drive space and CPU to run the virtual machine properly without killing the performance of the host. The virtual disks can also take up a lot of space if you're not careful so if you have many virtual machines provisioned and don't clean up the old ones that you're not using, you may find that your hard drive is full. Each of my Linux servers take up about 10GB of disk space.
Read full review
VMWare Fusion is perfectly suited for an application developer because it allows the dev to create cross-platform applications across the entire spectrum of operating systems without changing devices. An example of where it is less appropriate would be an environment where users are not required or have no need, to use multiple operating systems.
Read full review
Pros
  • Easy to create machines with different OS's, list of them can be found from Vagrant's website with configuration details.
  • Flexible configuration, user can determine what software will be pre-installed to machine. Saves time because it doesn't need to be done manually every time.
  • Easily manage full environments, not just single machines, with single command.
Read full review
  • Running isolated software development environments. Setting up environment variables and installing the right software versions for a given project can be time consuming and fragile. By doing all of this within a virtual disk image, we can easily switch between software environments without risk of breaking anything.
  • Running Windows-only programs on a Mac is invaluable. We use MacBook Pro laptops for our primary development environment. There are simply some programs we cannot run on OS X. Having VMWare Fusion is an invaluable asset for running Windows apps on Mac laptops on the go.
Read full review
Cons
  • Learning curve is steep - It can be challenging for someone to set up initially. After some coaching, the basics come pretty quickly though.
  • Relies on external Virtual Machine applications - It would be great if Vagrant itself could run the virtual machine instead of leaning on other virtualization software. This is a small detail, but would make setup simple.
  • Better support for running
Read full review
  • It is very rare for this to happen, but sometimes the Windows environment loses the internet connection while the Mac environment still has it. Rebooting the Windows environment in VMware Fusion fixes it.
  • It does not always recognize printers that are set up through the Mac, particularly if they are connected via WiFi instead of hardwired.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Vagrant is fast, versatile and does exactly what we need it to do: spin up virtual servers for local development fast and without trouble.
Read full review
For Apple workstations VMware Fusion is the virtualization software to use. No other application (free or paid) can do what Fusion can. The features and constant updates make Fusion an application that cant be beat.
Read full review
Usability
A GUI would be nice for entry level users.
Read full review
I made an 8 because it's good in almost every aspect. As I said if you are on macos and you need both windows and linux I think is the best options out there. Otherwise if you need only windows there is a competitor that could be better for performance and integration.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
It does what it says, and it does it well. AND...the technical support is second to none. Within an hour, I'm getting a phone call back from a COMPETENT ENGINEER that knows what he/she is talking about. For the less than 6 times I've had to call, I NEVER had to be escalated to another tech support person. BRAVO!!!
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
This is a workstation application and no install insights are needed.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Docker has a few advantages, especially with the disk size bloat brought on by Vagrant's hosting an entire OS and project in a VM. It relies on native tools, however, and may not support every software. Vagrant provides uniformity, efficiency and repeatability within team work and for deployment and testing.
Read full review
As mentioned previously, perpetual licensing was the #1 reason. The interface is also cleaner, simpler, and less bloat. Parallels also seem to run a bit slower. Fusion was also more stable and significantly faster in both raw performance and graphics compared to Virtualbox. Virtualbox also had a tendency to random freezings on some of our Linux instances on occasion.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Saved lots of time by being able to set up a local env quickly
  • Occasionally made troubleshooting bugs harder than it would have been using native Linux
  • Clients had issues setting it up, which may have provided us some security in keeping their business
Read full review
  • Users using a VM often don't need something as "fancy" as VMware Fusion, and instead can use a free option like Virtual Box, so we waste money on using an extra amount of VMware Fusion licenses.
  • Developers using and IT admins using VMware Fusion for testing saves us time and money. Simply, we know mistakes would take time and money to fix, but VMware is powerful, allows for proper and fast testing.
Read full review
ScreenShots