Parallels Desktop, not VMware Fusion, is the best virtualization software for most Mac users

Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac is lets you seamlessly run Windows and Mac applications side-by-side

“If you’ve ever toyed with the idea of running Windows on your Mac, you’ve probably asked yourself which is the right virtualization software for you: Parallels Desktop for Mac or VMware Fusion,” John Brownlee reports for Cult of Mac. “Both have their vigorous defenders, but which one gives the best performance?”

“The guys over at MacTech have put together an incredibly throrough series of benchmarking tests, comprised of over three thousand tests,” Brownlee reports. “The result? A 9,200 word piece they are calling a treatise that — at least in my view — conclusively crowns Parallels as the king of virtualization software.”

Brownlee reports, “Like I said, it’s incredibly thorough, and while MacTech insists it isn’t a ‘product review,’ the benchmarks certainly make a compelling case that Parallels is the better product for most users. It’s also, unfortunately, the more expensive product, costing $79.99 compared to VMware Fusion’s $49.99 sticker price.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: You get what you pay for, it would seem.

Advertisement: Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac – Run windows on your Mac – Faster

Related articles:
Parallels Desktop 8 updated with expanded support for Windows 8 – November 8, 2012
Macworld UK reviews Parallels Desktop 8.0: Does a slicker job than VMWare’s Fusion – September 20, 2012
Mossberg reviews Parallels Desktop 8: Works well; superior to VMWare Fusion – September 13, 2012
CNET reviews Parallels Desktop 8: New features put it above competitors – September 6, 2012
Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac now available – September 4, 2012


  1. I use VMWare Fusion 5. I only need it for running a few various subtitle applications, MKVToolNix, some VOB Joiner and .ssa subs batch making application. It’s good enough for the software I use and gives me no problems whatsoever. I might try Virtual Box and see how that is.

  2. It’s odd to see a community that typically eschews comparisons based primarily on performance jump straight to the “it’s faster” argument.

    I understand there are many use cases but I would typically place priority on stability and data integrity, not performance. While I don’t have statistics to back up a claim for VMWare Fusion, the company at least has significant corporate heritage.

  3. I was so unhappy with Parallels that I switched to VMWare. After many problems with both running hot, slowly, or not at all, I moved onto Oracle’s free software called VirtualBox. It has regular, free updates and meets my needs.

  4. Did use Parallels some years back, grew tired of the way I always had to frikin’ HUNT for the updates manually on their pages – and they loooove charging money.

    Switched to VMWare, and hasn’t looked back.

    Parallels reminds me of Drobo – a small organization with very little customer service – And products that aren’t all THAT good to begin with.

    This entire article reeks of product placement.

  5. Used Parallels 3 then switch to Fusion 3 now just switched back to Parallels 7&8.

    Parallels seems a little snappier than fusion. Also, I had a ton of fusion permissions problems when using fusion with multiple mac accounts, which caused me lots of headaches trying to fix and some data loss. Parallels had less disk activity compared to fusion leading to better performance for mac apps when both are running.

    I was switch back and forth between programs to take advantage of the competitive upgrades that each company offer.

  6. Parallels is faster. We keep hearing that. VMWare is better at everything else. Less intrusive, better interface, less buggy…etc. I’d only pick parallels if I absolutely had to have the best performance possible using heavy applications.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.