Comparison

This page compares Lume with other macOS virtualization tools. All of these are quality projects—the best choice depends on your use case.

Quick Comparison

Tart

Tart is a mature CLI tool for macOS and Linux VMs on Apple Silicon. Like Lume, it uses Apple's Virtualization Framework, so core VM performance is identical.

Key differences:

• Licensing: Tart uses a Fair Source license, which is source-available but not fully open source. Lume is MIT licensed.

• API access: Lume includes an HTTP server (lume serve) for programmatic VM control. Tart is CLI-only—integrating it into applications requires wrapping CLI commands.

• Unattended setup: Lume automates the macOS Setup Assistant via VNC and OCR, creating ready-to-use VMs without manual clicking. Tart relies on Packer plugins for automation.

• MCP integration: Lume ships with an MCP server for AI agent integration. Tart doesn't have this.

• Ecosystem: Tart has a larger community and extensive CI/CD integrations (Cirrus CI, GitHub Actions). Lume integrates with the Cua agent framework for computer-use agents.

When to choose Tart: If you need proven CI/CD integrations, prefer a larger community, or if the Fair Source license works for your use case.

When to choose Lume: If you need an HTTP API, MCP server integration, fully automated VM provisioning, MIT licensing, or are building AI agents that interact with macOS.

Lima

Lima is primarily designed for running Linux containers on macOS, similar to how Docker Desktop works.

Key differences:

• Lima doesn't support macOS VMs—it's focused on providing a Linux environment for container workloads.
• Lima automatically sets up file sharing and port forwarding between host and guest.
• Lima integrates with containerd and nerdctl for Docker-compatible workflows.

When to choose Lima: If you need Linux containers on macOS and want a Docker-like experience. Lima isn't suitable if you need macOS VMs.

UTM

UTM provides a graphical interface for running VMs on macOS, supporting both Apple Silicon (via Virtualization Framework) and Intel emulation (via QEMU).

Key differences:

• UTM emphasizes GUI-based VM management, while Lume is CLI and API-first.
• UTM can emulate x86 systems on Apple Silicon (slower), while Lume only supports native ARM virtualization.
• UTM supports a wider range of guest operating systems via QEMU emulation.

When to choose UTM: If you prefer a graphical interface, need to run x86 operating systems, or want broad guest OS compatibility.

OrbStack

OrbStack is a fast, lightweight alternative to Docker Desktop for running containers and Linux machines on macOS.

Key differences:

• OrbStack focuses on Linux containers and doesn't support macOS VMs.
• OrbStack has excellent integration with Docker and Kubernetes workflows.
• OrbStack is a commercial product with a free tier.

When to choose OrbStack: If you're primarily working with Docker/Linux containers and want the best performance for that use case.

VirtualBuddy

VirtualBuddy is a native macOS app for creating and managing macOS and Linux VMs with a focus on simplicity.

Key differences:

• VirtualBuddy is GUI-first with no CLI or API.
• Built for desktop use, not automation or CI/CD.
• Excellent for manually testing on different macOS versions.

When to choose VirtualBuddy: If you want a simple, native Mac app for occasional VM use without automation needs.

Summary

Choose Lume if you need:

• An HTTP API for programmatic VM control
• MCP server integration for AI agents
• Fully automated macOS VM provisioning
• MIT-licensed tooling

The Virtualization Framework means all Swift-based tools (Lume, Tart, VirtualBuddy) have the same underlying VM performance. The differences are in the interfaces, automation capabilities, and ecosystem integration.