Parallels VS VM Ware VS UTM smackdown.... Which is best?

I haven't yet installed any copy of Windows on any of my M-series Macs, but from those 3 options only one feels appealing to me, and that is UTM, not because it works flawlessly, but because it's open so I can make it work flawlessly.

Earlier today I decided to research the most effective way to make the installation of the ARM version of Windows 11 on macOS as straightforward and accessible as possible, so I started by reading out on how to inject VirtIO drivers into the Windows installer to address the missing audio problem during the installation, then I went to the GitHub Crystal ISO Fetch project repository in order to investigate the best approach to adapt the Windows instructions from the first link to a tool used to create Windows installation media on macOS, followed by reading the script actually responsible for building the ISO file, and finally I realized that nothing of this is actually necessary because UTM already integrates with AppleEvents so the installation can theoretically already be automated with AppleScript, Automator, and Shortcuts.

While as I mentioned in theory the above completely eliminates the need to inject drivers into the windows installation media, timing scripts to work around the lack of output processing is still far too clunky for my taste so I continued digging deeper and came across Apple's VisionKit framework, which can in theory be used to OCR the contents displayed by the virtual machine in real time and get the bounding boxes of all the text displayed by the guest system. This, combined with the aforementioned UTM scriptability, makes it both possible and feasible to implement an event-based system that can be scripted to locate, expect, and react to the visual output of the virtual machine, in addition to generate native accessibility elements to make the guest perfectly accessible with VoiceOver from the host.

If I succeed in implementing my ideas, UTM will be taken to the next level and will be on a league of its own in terms of automation and accessibility, and virtualization can even become our best option to tackle inaccessible operating systems, the only thing I need is time to work on personal projects again so I can commit to this goal. This isn't even the only accessibility project that I have in mind involving on-device computer vision, but my success with this one will dictate whether I'll consider tackling the rest.

Using a VM is way, way out of my comfort zone. Also, I realize that this was back in 2011, so tons of things have probably changed, but when I first got this computer, a friend tried to help me set up VM fusion. It was sluggish to the point of being unuseible, and it kept losing my jaws authorization. I'd say that I use windows around 90 percent of the time; pretty much only use the actual mac side of things for email at this point, but as this 14-year-old computer proves, Apple hardware is vastly superior to anything else out there, or at least it was back when I first got this computer. So I use bootcamp and it works beautifully. I have no clue what I'm going to do when the sad yet inevitable day comes that this computer needs to be replaced. Just praying it has a few more good years in it. True, it can't be updated in any way, but it meets all my needs perfectly: playing audio games, web browsing and basic word processing. I'll definitely be monitoring these kinds of topics as closely as I can, though, since it's pretty clear that Apple doesn't have any plans to bring Bootcamp back any time soon, if ever.

When the M1 launched, rumor has it that Microsoft had a secret exclusivity deal with Qualcomm, and Craig Federighi also said the following at the time:

We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it.

So, at least to me, it seems like the actual reason why Bootcamp doesn't currently exist for ARM-based Macs, is because Microsoft is not licensing it properly, which seems to be further corroborated by Microsoft themselves:

Windows 11 runs best on a PC designed for Windows.

Parallels® Desktop versions 18, 19, and 20 are authorized solutions for running Arm® versions of Windows 11 Pro and Windows 11 Enterprise in a virtual environment on its platform on Apple M1, M2, and M3 computers.

João, thanks for sharing that link. I always just assumed that the hold-up was Apple just not wanting to invest in Boot Camp on M-series Macs. From that article, it sounds like Microsoft knows exactly what they are doing and has no interest in changing that. Disappointing, as the Mac hardware is top of the line but, as others have already said, the VoiceOver experience is far inferior to what one can get on Windows for most use cases.

Could Microsoft have been holding back for the launch of their ARM machines? Genuinely asking here.

Was wondering will vm ware be far superior than utm?
I've always been noticing that there is always an input lag while using utm.
The amount of times I used windows virtual machine is so few that I doubt I will remember my password the next time I use it on my Mac.
but still I'm just wondering would I get a better experience if I switch to VMware fusion

Yes I use UTM and there is a lag. It is minimal but if another VM solution can have lower lag that's perfect.

According to an article I read on using virtual machines under macOS, most Mac users don't run Windows on their Mac devices. The main demand, as I understand it, comes from legacy applications for which there are no macOS equivalents. That's a small and diminishing market. There's no incentive for Apple or Microsoft to support Bootcamp.

Given how little I use Windows, though, virtualizing it is an option that deserves consideration in my use cases - or keeping a Windows installation on a second machine for those situations in which I want it, as I currently do. I'll always need two working laptop/desktop machines anyway, as I know how long repairs can take, and I can't afford to be without.

I have had the rare experience of actually using all of the software mentioned above. UTM, fusion, and parallels, so here goes.
UTM:
UTM is very solid for macOS virtual machines. It integrates well with Apple Silicon and handles simple workloads fine, but it’s not the best choice for Windows. The lack of 3D acceleration means graphics-heavy apps and mainstream games won’t run properly. For anyone sticking to productivity software, that might not matter, but if you want GPU support, it’s a hard limit. On top of that, UTM has no audio during the first Windows installer phase — the same bug VMware Fusion has — so you’re flying blind until the OS finishes setting up. Once Windows is installed, audio does work, but compared to Parallels the whole process feels less polished.

VMware Fusion:
VMware Fusion was once rock solid, but ever since Broadcom took over it’s been slipping. Updates now have to be pulled manually — no automatic delivery anymore — and that’s just the start. Every time you launch Fusion, you’re hit with the “login items added, VMware has added items that can run in the background” popup. There’s no way to turn it off permanently: you can clear it when it pops up, but it will be back the next time you restart or launch Fusion. This bug has been around since at least 2023, and it’s still not fixed. Fusion also suffers from the same no-audio bug in the first installer phase of Windows as UTM, which is another step backward. Once you’re past these annoyances, Fusion runs well enough, but it doesn’t feel as tight as it used to on Intel Macs.

Parallels:
Parallels lands better in terms of overall usability. The one quirk is that setup requires OCR for a few screens, but the process itself is straightforward once you know how to use OCR. If you’ve used it before, it’s not a big deal at all. Once installed, Parallels is smooth and polished. A major advantage is its support for shared folders, which lets you move files seamlessly between macOS and Windows. This is something Fusion used to handle on Intel with Windows 10 and maybe 11, but it doesn’t work on Windows ARM anymore. Without shared folders, you’re stuck with clunkier options like copy/paste, Dropbox, or an external drive. Another feature that sets Parallels apart is snapshot integration with Time Machine. Instead of forcing a full backup of the entire VM every single time like UTM or Fusion do, Parallels only backs up the most recent changes. To put that into perspective: if you have a 40 or 50 GB VM, Time Machine will treat it as a new file each backup under Fusion or UTM, duplicating the entire thing. With Parallels, only the latest snapshot data is saved, which can cut backups down to just a few gigabytes. That’s not just storage-saving — it makes backups faster, less stressful on your system, and far more sustainable over time.

Performance:
Where Parallels really stands out is raw performance for Windows VMs. Startup, suspend, resume, and shutdown are much quicker than Fusion or UTM. For example, suspending a VM in Parallels takes around 3 to 5 seconds, compared to 30 seconds to a full minute in Fusion. This isn’t a hardware issue — these numbers were from an M3 Max with 36 GB of RAM and a 12–14 core CPU. It’s just that Parallels is better optimized. That kind of speed difference makes a big impact if you’re regularly switching back and forth between macOS and Windows.

Bottom line:
All three solutions have their place. UTM is great for macOS VMs or light Windows use but falls down without GPU support. VMware Fusion is still usable but dragged down by persistent bugs and a general sense of neglect under Broadcom. Parallels isn’t perfect — the OCR setup can put people off — but once installed it’s miles ahead in terms of integration, performance, and everyday usability. Per my experience, i'd say parallels is the best option if we're talking about all 3 softwares, but again; that's my experience.

Do people in this community even care about 3D acceleration on a Windows virtual machine? As a user I certainly don't, and as a developer I'm also totally unlikely to care about DirectX on a Mac when Metal is designed with the actual hardware in mind. If I did care, however, I would be running Windows on an actual PC likely with some beefy consumer-grade NVIDIA card, or maybe even Linux with SteamOS for the games that support it, since many people claim that the Windows games that don't outright refuse to run on Linux actually run faster on that platform than on Windows itself.

One actually relevant question that is yet to be addressed is the latency situation regarding Parallels and VMWare.

Again. If you read what I said above, this is not relevant to most people. However, when it comes to mainstream games? Yes, 3d accelaration or lack thereof, does matter. notice how I said that this is likely to not matter to most users? However, it is still a valid point to make.
As far as latency? Per experience? I did not experience any latency in parallels, or vmware myself. If there is latency, its not noticeable.

As far as latency? Per experience? I did not experience any latency in parallels, or vmware myself. If there is latency, its not noticeable.

And how would you compare that to the experience in UTM?

To be frank? I did experiense latency in UTM, this one was noticeable compared to fusion or Parallels, then again, the whole vm was quite laggy so maybe that was why, but it was noticeable. And yeah, that one had the same exact specks as my vmware vm, 16 gigs of ram and 6 to 8 processor cores just like in fusion but it really felt laggy.

Once I find the time to actually read UTM's source code I'll try to get to the bottom of that latency, since it's present on macOS virtual machines too and I just assumed it was normal. As I understand it, macOS and Linux support is provided by Apple's Virtualization framework whereas Windows relies on a lower level implementation from qemu, so the fact that the latency is present on macOS virtual machines as well makes it reasonable to believe that the problem is in UTM itself.

Your welcome. If you want to test things out, make a mac vm on fusion, you should be able to notice the difference.

I appreciate the info about why bootcamp no longer exists. I suppose an option would be having 2 machines, but I can't figure out how that would work given the space I have available. If I went that route, I'd want the cheapest windows machine and cheapest mac possible. If I could get a Mac Mini and a similarly sized windows machine and maybe find a way for them to use the same monitor for the rare times a monitor might be needed, that would probably be my best bet. However, I'm still hoping that it won't matter for at least a couple more years.

I am activlly using vmware and what I noticed is that vmware fusion is just much better than utm in terms of latency when working on virtual windows. I would like to try parallels but don't really want to pay for now.

You don't have to pay, parallels has a 14 day trial when you download from their site. After the ttriay yeah you'll have to pay but, its not a pay upfront kind of deal, there's a trial.