Last Updated on August 7, 2025 by Arnav Sharma

In the fast-paced world of infrastructure provisioning and management, two powerful tools have emerged as game-changers: Terragrunt and Terraspace.

By examining automated project creation, project directory structures, configuration management, and dependency handling, readers will gain a comprehensive understanding of Terragrunt and Terraspace.

The Flaws of Terraform and How Terragrunt Solves Them

One of the main flaws of Terraform lies in its lack of convenient ways to manage complex architectures and execute commands against multiple stacks at once. This is where Terragrunt comes in to provide solutions.

With Terraform, managing complex architectures often involves code duplication, making it difficult to maintain and update. Terragrunt acts as a mature tool backed by Gruntwork, specifically designed to address the flaws of Terraform. It acts as a wrapper on the Terraform binary and offers recommendations and features to make development and maintenance easier.

Importantly, Terragrunt does not force anything on the developer, providing a pure Terraform experience. It provides a convenient way to manage dependencies between multiple stacks, execute commands against multiple stacks simultaneously, and offers improved backend management for enterprise-grade projects.

Terragrunt is a valuable tool for addressing the limitations of Terraform and enhancing the overall infrastructure management experience.

Terragrunt: A Mature Tool Backed by Gruntwork

Terragrunt, a mature tool backed by Gruntwork, is a powerful solution for addressing the limitations of Terraform and enhancing the management of infrastructure. It acts as a wrapper on the Terraform binary, providing recommendations and features to make development and maintenance easier. Terragrunt does not force anything on the developer, allowing for a pure Terraform experience. It focuses on solving the flaws of Terraform, such as code duplication, lack of convenient command execution against multiple stacks, inadequate backend management for enterprise-grade projects, and difficulty in managing dependency between multiple stacks.

Features of Terragrunt 

• Acts as a wrapper on Terraform
• Provides recommendations and features
• Addresses limitations of Terraform
• Enhances infrastructure management

Terragrunt offers a mature and reliable solution for managing infrastructure with Terraform, making it a valuable tool for organizations looking to streamline their infrastructure management processes.

Terraspace: A New Tool Backed by BoltOps

Terraspace, a promising new tool backed by BoltOps, offers a multitude of advanced features and capabilities for efficient management of complex infrastructure projects.

With Terraspace, users can expect:

• A strictly defined project structure and integration with Ruby, providing a convenient way to work with complex infrastructure projects.
• A richer set of extensions and features compared to Terragrunt, allowing for greater flexibility and customization.
• Convenient initialization of state management backing resources, with Terraspace using regular Terraform files and dynamic resolution using Ruby’s templating engine.
• Predictable locations for building blocks and configurations within the project, making it easier to navigate and maintain.

Automated Project Creation With Terragrunt and Terraspace

To streamline the project creation process, both Terragrunt and Terraspace offer automated tools and convenient features. Terragrunt uses a configuration file (terragrunt.hcl) with basic helper functions, while Terraspace uses regular Terraform files placed inside the /config directory, with dynamic resolution using Ruby’s templating engine. Terragrunt does not require a strict project structure, allowing high customization and recommending grouping code on different abstraction layers and separate Git repositories. On the other hand, Terraspace enforces a strict and predefined directory structure, keeping everything in a single Git repository. Terraspace projects have predictable locations for building blocks and configurations, consisting of a mix of Terraform files and Ruby files for configuration and extensions. Both tools offer different approaches to project creation, catering to different preferences and requirements.

Table: Comparison of automated project creation features between Terragrunt and Terraspace.

Project Directory Structure: Customization Vs. Predefined With Terragrunt and Terraspace

Customization is a key differentiator when comparing the project directory structure of Terragrunt and Terraspace. Here are some key points to consider:

• Terragrunt does not require a strict project structure, allowing for high customization.
• Terragrunt recommends grouping code on different abstraction layers and separate Git repositories.
• Terraspace enforces a strict and predefined directory structure, keeping everything in a single Git repository.
• Terraspace projects have predictable locations for building blocks and configurations.

These differences in directory structure customization offer developers the flexibility to choose a tool that aligns with their specific project needs. Whether it’s the freedom to customize the directory structure or the convenience of a predefined structure, both Terragrunt and Terraspace provide options to cater to different preferences.

Configuration Management: Terragrunt Vs. Terraspace

When comparing Terragrunt and Terraspace, the configuration management differs in terms of their approaches and functionalities. Terragrunt manages environment selection using the `TS_ENV` variable and allows different levels of directories to declare variables to avoid code duplication. It uses the `tfvars` directory for stack configurations and the `include` function to import `*.hcl` files. On the other hand, Terraspace uses `*.tfvars` files for variable definition and defines global variables in `config/terraform/globals.auto.tfvars`. It uses layering with `base.tfvars` and `env_name.tfvars` for environment-specific overrides. Additionally, Terraspace allows the use of Ruby helper functions and templates for flexible variable values and downloads external modules to the `vendor/modules` directory.

Dependency Management: Terragrunt Vs. Terraspace

Terragrunt and Terraspace are both tools used for managing dependencies in infrastructure-as-code projects. However, they have different approaches to handling dependency management.

Terragrunt manages dependencies using the `terragrunt.hcl` file. Dependencies are defined using the `config_path` attribute in this file. Terragrunt also has the ability to use mock outputs, which can simulate unavailable outputs during certain commands.

On the other hand, Terraspace handles external module management by declaring them in the `Terrafile` file. This file allows developers to specify the external modules they need for their project. When running Terraspace, it automatically downloads these external modules to the `vendor/modules` directory.

Handling External Modules: Terragrunt Vs. Terraspace

Interestingly, both Terragrunt and Terraspace handle external modules differently.

Terragrunt manages external dependencies using the `terragrunt.hcl` file, where the `config_path` attribute is used to define the dependencies. It also allows the use of mock outputs to simulate unavailable outputs during certain commands.

On the other hand, Terraspace handles external modules by declaring them in the `Terrafile` file. These modules are then downloaded to the `vendor/modules` directory. Terraspace references both third-party and locally defined modules using the same paths, providing flexibility and eliminating concerns about the availability of modules in the future.