September 1, 2009 - Sven Huisman

Application Virtualization comparison chart September 2009

Finally we are ready to release the updated release of the Application Virtualization comparison chart! In this release we’ve updated all the products to the latest version and we’ve added test-results of application launch-times. We didn’t want the document to contain a lot of text describing what application virtualization is, all the ins and outs of every product in the  chart and the complete test-setup and how the tests were performed. We wanted the document to be as short as possible, easy to understand the differences between the solutions and a quick overview what the differences are in launch-times. To get fair results for the launch-times, we took the system requirements of each product into consideration and we made sure that the tests were performed under the same circumstances and that each system got enough resources available.

If you have any questions about this chart, don’t hesistate to comment on this blogpost or sent us an e-mail. In an upcoming update of this chart, we are considering adding other application virtualization  solutions as well.

So download the Application Virtualization comparison chart September 2009 (pdf) and feel free to give us any feedback.

Virtual Applications Application Virtualization / Citrix XenApp / comparison chart / Installfree / Microsoft App-V / Symantec Virtualization Solution / VMware Thinapp / Xenocode /

Comments

  • […] the VirtualFuture.info Application comparison chart September 2008 (pdf) (download the updated Application Virtualization comparison chart) and let us know what you think about […]

  • […] Application Virtualization comparison chart September 2009 | Virtualfuture.info virtualfuture.info/2009/09/application-virtualization-comparison-chart-september-2009 – view page – cached Finally we are ready to release the updated release of the Application Virtualization comparison chart! In this release we've updated all the products to the — From the page […]

  • Hessel says:

    Hi Sven\Matthijs,

    Nice work. will definitely help to select the best solution for every situation. Nice to know that a local install still beats them all (with a good solution to get rid of any application conflict offcourse)

    One question. Why did you decide to base the EVS chart on streaming. The second launch will be as fast as a local install if you don’t. What is the use of streaming an application that is already on your desktop. The filterdrivers of SVS will take care of any application conflicts so that can’t be it.

    Best
    Hessel

    • Sven Huisman says:

      We streamed the SVS packages to compare it to the other streaming products. Now you know if streaming SVS packages is a smart thing to do or not.

      • Rob H says:

        Did you actually create an InstallFree .exe file? We were told by the sales and tech folks we worked with (Tier III-IV InstallFree developers as well) that they had nixed that function over licensing concerns. We saw an old version that had that capability and they wouldn’t let us go back to that and wouldn’t entertain providing that type of functionality.

        As for Xenocode, you really ought to look at their Spoon piece. They are not only a very responsive, flexible and creative group, they also build good software! We like what we’ve seen so far and are conducting an in-depth evaluation of this capability. The ability to deploy on any web server and the fact that a streamed app runs at bare metal speed is just amazing. They also have application usage reporting in their roadmap, which, IMHO, is probably more important than the technology itself.

        We looked at the other solutions you mentioned in the review as well, even spent money and time on a few. We’ll see how Spoon shakes out, but they do look promising. And no, I don’t own stock! 🙂

  • […] guys at virtualfuture.info have released a new version of their Application Virtualization Comparison Chart. This document […]

  • Renee says:

    Thanks guys. The Application virtualization performance is really helpful.

    Renee Kloosterziel
    Fikira BV

  • […] 4, 2009 by Bert Bouwhuis Sven Huisman en Matthijs Haverink hebben een update gepubliceerd van hun feature-vergelijking voor een aantal applicatievirtualisatie-producten. Ook werd de […]

  • Randy Cook says:

    Thanks for doing this.

    More information about how the tests were done would be useful. Also, I know that at least the MS solution and the Symantec solution can be operated in non-streaming mode. It would be interesting to see how they compare in those modes to the non-streaming competitors. Memory consumption is another area of interest.

    Randy Cook
    Symantec

  • Nice chart, once again. Couple of comments and observations tho (mostly about App-V as I know that the best):

    You basically divide virtualized applications into two categories, standalone and centraly controlled access (pg. 4). I would rather divide them between “client based” and “clientless” as that’s the more meaningful division from technical perspect.

    On the platform comparison, why would you include TS and Citrix as separate platforms, Citrix is also TS 😉

    In Packaging method -row, maybe “Installation monitoring” is better term than “Streaming Profiler” which sounds very much like Citrix terminology.

    When talking about Security on AD User/Group level (in standalone scenario) I would say that App-V should have Yes with a remark that you can control this via Security Descriptors for files inside the package. Yes, cumbersome as hell but it’s there.

    In the Runs from XXX -rows, I would say that you _could_ run App-V packages from CD-ROM or USB (see Login Consultants’ recent utility for example) but of course not without the client being installed first.

    In License models, what do you mean by bulk / unlimited? There is no single license you can by for App-V that allows unlimited users or devices..

    Anyways, minor things these but just caugt my eye.

    br,
    Kalle

  • Arjan says:

    The comparison sheet is just what I needed. SO thanks for that.
    Only item I would like to see added is some pricing info.

  • […] blog about how to migrate to Windows 7 for all the application virtualization products from our comparison chart. In the mean time, you can check the video from InstallFree about the universal client […]

  • Allan says:

    Great job!
    We run app-v on ts servers and are looking for using it on our desktops also.
    But with SA and MDOP required, we hare probely going for vmware or installfree. In vmwares case it vould be 1/5 of the price.
    Thansk again for the chart.

  • […] I think this chart is very usefull when one has to decide what functionality is desired You can find the full article at http://virtualfuture.info/2009/09/application-virtualization-comparison-chart-september-2009/ […]

  • John Ba says:

    Great article. Just wondering when the next version will be released as I am interested in the Windows 7 support side of things. Thanks.

  • […] in the new upcoming top 25 of Virtualization bloggers, but if you like what we’re doing, our Application virtualization comparison chart for example or our event reports (VMworld, Synergy) and our regular blogging, please give […]

  • Curtis says:

    Thank you for this comparison. We just finished testing several of these in house and your chart provided a number of comparison points that we hadn’t considered. One item to your chart that you might want to add is URL redirection. The ability to map different URLs to different virtuallized browser environments with different plug-ins is very useful.

  • Rob says:

    This is a very well written, easy to understand chart. Very useful! I would like to make a few comments regarding the Xenocode product. In the “Patching with additional/incremental files” portion, you have a NO. We have successfully used the ability to create add on components to patch applications many times. So I say that should be changed to a YES. Also, the “Deploy to AD groups”, “Deploy to AD Domain / OU’s”, “Deploy to Computers”, “Deploy to AD users” should be a YES, since you simply use GPO’s for that (unless you have different criteria). Finally, “Shell Integration out?of?the?box” is there through an executable called “xreg.exe”. If you want to integrate a virtualized app into the shell, you simply add xreg to you execution statement.

  • […] appliction virtualization and the solutions currently available. In the past I’ve written an Application virtualization comparison chart with Matthijs, but this whitepaper is a lot more than just a comparison chart.  Are you looking […]

  • Thank you for info. Very useful and time saving. Thank you for sharing.