This document discusses and compares XenClient and Mirage virtualization technologies. It notes that while XenClient uses virtual layering and has hardware compatibility limitations, Mirage uses local application installation for full native performance without an hardware compatibility list. Mirage was adopted to deploy applications to 7,000 endpoints in 4 months with initial base images deployed in 30 minutes and re-images in 12 minutes using differential imaging and data deduplication. Both products are assessed as suitable for centralized management, corporate owned/personally enabled devices, and delivery as a service, but Mirage imposes no changes to the user experience and has lower bandwidth requirements.