If you’re building something for spatial computing and you need to pick a platform, you’re essentially choosing between two very different bets. Meta Horizon OS is the open, volume-first ecosystem that’s already generating serious developer revenue. visionOS 26 is the premium, tightly integrated Apple experience with a smaller but rapidly growing app store. Neither is the obvious right answer for everyone — it depends on what you’re building and who you’re building for.
Here’s the honest comparison.
Ecosystem Size and Revenue Opportunity
Meta’s numbers are hard to argue with. The Quest Store has over 10,000 apps, more than 300 titles with £1 million or more in lifetime revenue, and cumulative platform revenue approaching $3 billion. For consumer XR content — games, fitness, social experiences — Meta Quest is simply where the paying users are.
visionOS 26 has passed 2,500 native apps, which is solid for a platform that’s been around since early 2024. The Vision Pro audience skews enterprise, and those enterprise users are spending, just on different things. Productivity tools, visualisation software, training applications, and immersive communications platforms are where visionOS revenue is concentrating.
If you’re building a consumer game or interactive experience, start with Meta. If you’re building enterprise spatial software with a relatively high price point, visionOS deserves serious attention.
Developer Tools: Different Philosophies
The toolchains reflect each company’s DNA.
Meta Horizon OS uses Unity and Unreal Engine via OpenXR, with the Meta XR SDK on top for hand tracking, passthrough, and spatial anchors. If you’ve shipped anything on Android or game consoles, the workflow feels familiar. Meta also opened Horizon OS to third-party hardware manufacturers — Asus and Lenovo both have certified devices — so your builds can reach a broader range of hardware than just Quest headsets.
visionOS 26 centres on Xcode, SwiftUI, and RealityKit. If you’ve been building iOS or macOS apps, you’re not starting from scratch. RealityKit has matured significantly in 2026, and visionOS 26 introduced better tools for Mac Virtual Display and tighter iPhone and iPad integration, which matters for enterprise workflows where the headset supplements rather than replaces other devices.
Unity PolySpatial is an option for visionOS too, so you’re not forced to rewrite a Unity project entirely to ship on Apple. But native SwiftUI gives you the most idiomatic experience, and Apple’s approval process rewards apps that feel native rather than cross-compiled.
Hardware Reach and Price
This is where the platforms diverge most sharply.
Meta Quest 3 sits at around £499. It’s a standalone device with reasonable hand tracking, solid passthrough, and enough processing power for most mixed reality applications. Meta Quest 3S came in at an even lower price point. The Horizon OS install base is the largest in standalone VR by a significant margin.
Apple Vision Pro is still north of £3,000. That’s enterprise pricing, full stop. The M2 and R1 chip combination delivers genuinely impressive performance and low-latency passthrough, but the audience is small and self-selecting.
For most developers, this translates practically: if distribution matters and you want to reach lots of users quickly, Meta’s reach is unbeatable. If you’re targeting a specific enterprise buyer who’s already committed to Vision Pro, the premium hardware is a feature, not a bug.
What visionOS 26 Changed
The 26 update (announced at WWDC 2026) is worth noting because it makes the platform more capable as a productivity tool, which is where its market is heading. Mac Virtual Display improvements mean you can use Vision Pro as a wraparound external monitor setup — developers at studios and design agencies are using it for spatial code review and 3D modelling workflows. The tighter integration with iPhone means handoff between devices is genuinely smooth.
visionOS 26 also added improved guest mode, which matters for enterprise demos and shared device scenarios.
The Android XR Factor
Android XR complicates the picture. Google’s platform, with Samsung as the first hardware partner, launched in early 2026 and positions itself as a third option. It runs on Snapdragon Spaces SDK and targets both headset and smart glasses form factors. For developers already targeting Android, the transition is relatively shallow. For Meta, Android XR is the most direct competitive threat to Horizon OS’s “Android of VR” ambition.
If you’re making a long-term platform bet, Android XR is worth watching — but it’s still early, and the Quest Store’s existing content economy gives Meta a significant lead.
Which Should You Target?
The honest answer is that these platforms don’t fully compete for the same developers right now.
Build for Meta Horizon OS if you’re making consumer content, games, social experiences, or fitness apps. The install base is there, the monetisation tooling works, and Unity support is mature.
Build for visionOS if you’re targeting enterprise buyers, building premium productivity or visualisation tools, or making something that benefits from the Vision Pro’s display quality and spatial audio. The higher device price means your own pricing can reflect it.
Build for both if you’re using Unity and can afford the QA overhead. OpenXR makes the bridging tractable, even if each platform needs tuning.
The one thing to avoid is treating this as a single unified “XR market”. It isn’t. Meta and Apple are building different products for different use cases, and the smartest developers are treating them that way.