Everything below comes from MSFS 2020. I haven’t flown any of these three on 2024 yet, and all three are either freshly arrived there or still mid-transition. So this isn’t a verdict on the current state of things. It’s a baseline, plus some context that changes how I read my own impressions.
The usual way this gets argued online is frame rates. PMDG smoother than Fenix, FSLabs better or worse depending on the thread, endless VRAM debates. On my rig, flying both PMDG’s 737 and FSLabs’ A321, that argument doesn’t really hold up. Both run fine, no stutters worth mentioning, nothing I’d call a meaningful gap. So if performance isn’t the differentiator for me, the interesting stuff is elsewhere.
PMDG 737: the one I never have to think about
PMDG’s 737NG has been my default for years. Performance is solid, the systems are deep without being fussy, and visually it’s held up well against newer competition. This is a product line with a long history behind it, PMDG has been building 737s for two decades across multiple platforms.
One place FSLabs actually pulls ahead, though: the MCDU. Punching in a route, working through the FMC logic, it feels like FSLabs went a level deeper than PMDG did. PMDG’s implementation is solid and does what you need, but FSLabs gives you more to dig into if that’s the part of the flight you enjoy.
FSLabs, in contrast, came to MSFS 2020 pretty late with the A321ceo. Not broken, not ugly, just softer. Less sharp panel lines, less detail in the surface textures. Performance-wise the two were close, I never noticed PMDG pulling ahead on frames in any way that mattered.
Now PMDG has finished rolling out the full NG family for MSFS 2024, -600 through -900, with the -700 shipping a “High Detail Update” that reworks textures and geometry. If that update is as significant as PMDG describes, the gap that already existed in 2020 could get wider on 2024. Or FSLabs catches up. I don’t know yet.
FSLabs A321: a first attempt, and it shows in the right places
Here’s something I should have framed more clearly from the start. FSLabs’ A321ceo for MSFS only came out in December 2024. Before that, FSLabs didn’t have an MSFS product at all, their previous Airbus work was for Prepar3D. So when I compare it to PMDG’s 737, I’m comparing a twenty-year product line against something in its first year on this platform.
Seen that way, the texture gap I noticed in 2020 makes a lot more sense. What’s more interesting is what FSLabs got right despite being the new kid. The flight model is excellent. The sound design around the cockpit and engines is some of the best in the sim. For a first MSFS release, landing the hard parts and being soft on visuals is the trade-off I’d expect, not the one I’d worry about.
The MEL implementation is the standout for me. Most study-level add-ons handle failures as a menu you toggle yourself, switch on a hydraulic fault, fly with it, switch it off again. FSLabs ties failures to simulated airframe age and operating history, so the aircraft genuinely ages and things start going wrong on their own terms, scaling up the older and more heavily used the airframe gets. When something does fail, the Minimum Equipment List tells you whether you can still dispatch or whether the flight’s off, the same document real crews would pull out. Nobody else in this space is doing it quite like this.
On top of that, the ATSU, FSLabs’ take on the ACARS unit, lets you pull weather, request pre-departure clearances, and handle gate assignments without leaving the cockpit, reviewers who’ve spent real time with it describe it as mirroring how the real unit works. Some of the rest, GPS jamming, icing effects, is more in “nice to have” territory. But the MEL and failure system alone make the aircraft feel lived-in in a way PMDG, for all its polish, doesn’t quite match.
By the time FSLabs arrived, Fenix had already had its A320ceo out for a couple of years and had expanded into the A319 and A321ceo. FSLabs walked into a market that was already crowded and already had a high bar set for visual fidelity. That they shipped with the systems depth they did, even with softer textures, says more about priorities than about falling behind.
MSFS 2024 compatibility followed quickly, an update in mid-2025 brought initial 2024 support requiring Sim Update 2, alongside sound and system improvements. Whether the visual side gets attention next, I don’t know. Given FSLabs is running 2020 and 2024 in parallel while reportedly working on something built specifically for 2024, the texture work might come later rather than sooner.
Fenix A320: no firsthand read at all
I’ve never flown the Fenix A320, on 2020 or 2024, so this is pure secondhand.
What comes up repeatedly in owner reports is close to the opposite of the FSLabs story. Strong on visuals and systems, Fenix has had years longer to build out its A320 family and reputation, but performance and VRAM usage keep coming up as the sore point. Recent patches have specifically targeted VRAM headroom and a display flickering issue tied to a Sim Update 4 regression on 2024.
One more wrinkle worth mentioning. FSLabs actually has an A321neo out before Fenix does, Fenix has confirmed their A320neo won’t land until sometime in 2026 at the earliest. But FSLabs’ neo isn’t really finished either, it’s been stuck on the LEAP engine variant for months with no roadmap for the Pratt & Whitney version they promised, and updates have gone quiet since around August 2025. So “first to the neo” isn’t quite the win it sounds like on paper.
So it comes down to what you’re optimizing for. If textures and visual polish matter most to you, Fenix is probably still the safer bet for the A320, once its neo arrives. If you’d rather have the deeper systems and the MEL-driven failure model, FSLabs is already there with the A321, incomplete neo aside. Neither is a clean win across the board, and a lot of people are just waiting to see what Fenix’s neo actually looks like before deciding.
A quick reference, with the caveat that the Fenix row is secondhand:
| PMDG 737 (NG family) | FSLabs A321 | Fenix A320 family | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visuals / textures | Sharp, well ahead in 2020; High Detail Update rolling out for 2024 | Softer, less detailed surfaces, the clearest gap to PMDG | Strong by reputation, generally cited as a high bar for the A320 |
| Systems depth | Deep, proven, MCDU solid but not the deepest of the three | MEL-driven, age-based failure system, deeper MCDU/FMC than PMDG | Cited as strong, no firsthand comparison here |
| Performance (2020, my rig) | Fine, no stutters | Fine, no real gap to PMDG | Owner reports mention VRAM/performance as the recurring complaint |
| MSFS 2024 status | Full NG lineup (-600 to -900) native on 2024 | Initial 2024 compatibility added, A321neo stuck on LEAP only | Native on 2024, A320neo not expected before 2026 |
| Price | $34.99 to $74.99 depending on variant, 60% loyalty discount from 2020 | $69.95 (A321ceo) | £49.99 (A320 base), £39.99 (A319/A321 expansion) |
What I’m actually curious about
The question I want answered isn’t “which is best overall.” It’s narrower than that.
If you’re flying the 737 or the 777, PMDG isn’t really a question. The lineup is complete on 2024, the systems are proven, and nothing I’ve seen suggests that changes once I actually fly the 2024 versions myself.
For the A32x family it’s less clean. PMDG doesn’t make one, so the choice is between Fenix and FSLabs, and that choice depends on what you care about more, visuals or systems depth. Right now FSLabs has the deeper simulation and the more interesting failure model, Fenix has the stronger visuals and the bigger install base. Whether that balance holds on MSFS 2024 once FSLabs gets more visual attention, or once Fenix’s neo finally lands, is the open question.
And a lot of people in the A32x camp seem to be in a holding pattern, waiting to see what Fenix’s A320neo actually looks like before deciding anything.
Published 13.6.2026.
