The single-engine Vision Jet G2+ against the twin-engine Phenom 300E, two very different rungs on the personal-jet ladder.
These two rarely stay on the same shortlist for long. The Vision Jet exists so that a piston or turboprop owner can fly a jet themselves, and its range, runway and full-cabin payload are all sized to that idea rather than to competing with a light jet. The Phenom 300 is a professional aeroplane in operation as much as in price: crewing, training and engine programmes all assume a different kind of owner. The question worth answering first is how many trips a year genuinely need the longer legs and the fuller cabin, because if the answer is a handful, chartering those and flying the rest yourself is the cheaper honest plan.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
Choose the Vision Jet when the mission is built around an owner-pilot carrying a small party on regional sectors and when CAPS, simplified systems and an attainable transition matter more than light-jet cabin and range capability. Its coherence comes from using it as a personal aircraft.
Choose the Phenom 300E when a larger cabin, higher cruise performance and longer business missions are used often enough to support professional-grade training, maintenance and programme decisions. It belongs in a flight-department or high-utilisation ownership plan, even though it is certificated for single-pilot operation.
Neither should be bought to cover only a handful of annual jet missions. Chartering those trips while keeping a simpler aircraft for routine flying can avoid carrying type-rating, programme, hangar and fixed-cost exposure all year.
PlaneFit's annual estimates cannot reproduce an engine programme, crew model, finance structure, dispatch requirement or tax treatment. Obtain current programme terms, insurance requirements and mission performance from the manufacturers and qualified operators.
| Decision factor | Cirrus Vision Jet G2+View aircraft profile | Embraer Phenom 300EView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2023 | 2024 |
| Estimated purchase | €2.84m | €8.73m |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €275k | €542k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €4.21m | €11.44m |
| Cruise speed | 311 kt | 464 kt |
| Advertised range | 1275 nm | 2010 nm |
| Seats | 7 | 10 |
| Realistic payload | 719 kg | 1310 kg |
| Runway need | 1036 m | 978 m |
| Landing gear | Retractable tricycle | Retractable tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | Type rating | Type rating |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | The simplest route into owner-flown jet travel, but maximum-fuel payload, runway performance and cabin size remain limiting. | Class-leading speed, range and resale strength, but acquisition, crew, engine programs and maintenance demand a professional budget. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ | Embraer Phenom 300E | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $4.28m (€3.96m) | $11.79m (€10.91m) | $7.51m (€6.95m) to Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ |
| 100 h / year | $4.69m (€4.34m) | $12.65m (€11.71m) | $7.96m (€7.37m) to Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ |
| 200 h / year | $5.36m (€4.96m) | $14.08m (€13.03m) | $8.72m (€8.07m) to Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ |
The gap widens as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
Advertised range is a still-air, best-case number. With 4 people aboard and realistic reserves, plan on about 854 nm from the Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ against 1,347 nm from the Embraer Phenom 300E. On a return trip without refuelling, that is the radius that decides which destinations are on the list at all.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ has enough runway at 13,095 of them and the Embraer Phenom 300E at 14,639, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 3,399 ft and 3,209 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
Nothing separates them here. Both require a type rating, so a pilot qualified for one is qualified for the other.