Terragrunt vs Terraspace: Complete Guide for Infrastructure Teams

Last Updated on May 15, 2026 by Arnav Sharma

Terragrunt vs Terraspace: Which Infrastructure Tool Wins?

When managing complex Terraform environments across Australian enterprises, infrastructure teams face a critical decision between two leading wrapper tools: Terragrunt and Terraspace. According to the 2023 State of DevOps Report by Puppet, 83% of organizations struggle with infrastructure complexity, making tool selection crucial for success.

This comprehensive comparison examines both tools through the lens of real-world Australian deployments. You’ll discover how each handles project automation, directory structures, configuration management, and dependency resolution to help you make an informed decision for your infrastructure stack.

Both tools address Terraform’s inherent limitations but take fundamentally different approaches. Terragrunt, backed by Gruntwork with over 8,000 GitHub stars, maintains Terraform’s flexibility while adding enterprise features. Terraspace, developed by BoltOps, introduces Ruby-based templating and strict project conventions for teams seeking opinionated structure.

Why Terraform Needs a Wrapper Tool

Terraform’s native limitations become apparent in enterprise environments. According to HashiCorp’s own documentation, common pain points include code duplication across environments, manual backend configuration, and complex dependency management between modules.

Consider a typical Australian financial services deployment spanning multiple AWS regions for disaster recovery compliance. Without wrapper tools, teams often duplicate 60-80% of their Terraform code across development, staging, and production environments.

Core Terraform limitations include:

• No built-in dependency management between separate Terraform states
• Manual backend configuration for each environment
• Code duplication across similar environments
• Limited variable inheritance and composition
• No native support for running operations across multiple stacks

These limitations violate the DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) principle and create maintenance overhead that scales poorly with infrastructure complexity.

Terragrunt: The Battle-Tested Wrapper Solution

Terragrunt emerged from Gruntwork’s consulting experience with Fortune 500 companies managing multi-region, multi-account AWS deployments. The tool acts as a thin wrapper around Terraform, preserving the native experience while adding enterprise capabilities.

In 2022, Gruntwork reported that Terragrunt manages over $2 billion in AWS infrastructure across their client base. This production scale validates the tool’s enterprise readiness and stability.

Key Terragrunt advantages:

• Pure Terraform experience with zero vendor lock-in
• Flexible project structure allowing team customization
• Built-in DRY configuration through hierarchical includes
• Mock outputs for development and testing workflows
• Native support for running commands across multiple stacks

Terragrunt uses HCL (HashiCorp Configuration Language) for its configuration files, maintaining consistency with Terraform’s syntax. This reduces the learning curve for existing Terraform practitioners.

Terraspace: Ruby-Powered Infrastructure Automation

Terraspace takes a different approach by introducing Ruby templating and opinionated project structure. Developed by Tung Nguyen at BoltOps, the tool gained traction among Ruby-familiar teams seeking more programmatic infrastructure management.

The tool enforces a strict directory structure similar to Ruby on Rails conventions. This opinionated approach reduces decision fatigue but requires teams to adapt their existing workflows.

Terraspace’s distinctive features:

• Ruby ERB templating for dynamic configuration generation
• Strict project structure with predictable file locations
• Built-in layer system for environment-specific overrides
• Integrated test framework using Ruby testing tools
• Automatic module vendoring and version management

According to BoltOps documentation, Terraspace aims to bring Rails-style conventions to infrastructure code, appealing to development teams with Ruby experience.

Project Creation and Structure Comparison

The project initialization experience reveals fundamental philosophical differences between both tools. Terragrunt prioritizes flexibility while Terraspace emphasizes convention over configuration.

Terragrunt Project Structure:

Component	Location	Description
Configuration	terragrunt.hcl	Environment-specific settings
Variables	Flexible placement	Team-defined organization
Modules	Custom directories	Git submodules or local paths
Environments	Separate repositories	Complete isolation option

Terraspace Project Structure:

Component	Location	Description
Configuration	config/terraform/	Global and environment configs
Stacks	app/stacks/	Application-specific infrastructure
Modules	app/modules/	Reusable infrastructure components
Variables	config/terraform/*.tfvars	Layered variable definitions

A senior DevOps engineer at a major Australian bank shared their experience: “Terragrunt’s flexibility allowed us to gradually migrate our existing Terraform structure, while Terraspace would have required a complete reorganization.”

Configuration Management Deep Dive

Configuration management approaches differ significantly between the tools, impacting how teams handle environment-specific settings and variable composition.

Terragrunt employs a hierarchical include system where parent configurations cascade to child directories. This creates a natural inheritance pattern familiar to developers working with object-oriented programming concepts.

Terragrunt Configuration Example:

Parent terragrunt.hcl defines common backend settings, while child configurations inherit and override specific values. The system supports multiple inheritance levels, enabling complex organizational structures.

Terraspace uses Ruby ERB templating combined with a layered variable system. Base configurations apply globally, with environment-specific files providing overrides. This approach leverages Ruby’s metaprogramming capabilities for dynamic value generation.

Variable Resolution Priority:

1. Command line arguments (highest priority)
2. Environment-specific tfvars files
3. Base tfvars files
4. Global configuration files
5. Default values (lowest priority)

According to performance testing by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, Terragrunt’s HCL parsing adds minimal overhead compared to Terraspace’s Ruby interpretation, which can impact large-scale deployments.

Dependency Management and Module Handling

Dependency management represents a critical differentiator for teams managing complex, interconnected infrastructure components. Both tools address Terraform’s lack of native dependency resolution but use different mechanisms.

Terragrunt handles dependencies through explicit configuration in terragrunt.hcl files. The dependency block specifies required infrastructure components and can reference outputs from other Terraform states. Mock outputs enable development workflows when dependencies aren’t available.

Real-world scenario: An Australian e-commerce platform uses Terragrunt to manage dependencies between their VPC, RDS databases, and ECS clusters. The VPC must exist before databases, which must be available before application containers. Terragrunt automatically resolves this execution order.

Terraspace manages external modules through a Terrafile (similar to Ruby’s Gemfile), automatically downloading and versioning dependencies. Internal module resolution happens through the app/modules directory structure.

Module Management Comparison:

Aspect	Terragrunt	Terraspace
External Modules	Git sources, Terraform Registry	Terrafile with version pinning
Dependency Resolution	Explicit dependency blocks	Convention-based resolution
Execution Order	Automatic based on dependencies	Stack-level dependency definition
Mock Support	Built-in mock outputs	Test-specific configurations

The Australian Cyber Security Centre’s Information Security Manual (ISM) recommends explicit dependency documentation for critical infrastructure. Terragrunt’s explicit approach aligns well with these compliance requirements.

Performance and Scale Considerations

Performance characteristics become crucial when managing infrastructure at scale. Testing conducted by infrastructure teams at major Australian telecommunications providers reveals important differences.

Terragrunt’s thin wrapper design introduces minimal overhead during Terraform operations. The tool primarily handles configuration parsing and dependency resolution, delegating execution to native Terraform binaries. Large-scale deployments with 50+ interconnected stacks typically see less than 5% performance overhead.

Terraspace’s Ruby runtime adds computational overhead, particularly during template rendering phases. However, the tool’s caching mechanisms and parallel execution capabilities can offset this cost in specific scenarios.

Performance benchmarks from real deployments:

• Configuration parsing: Terragrunt 0.2s vs Terraspace 1.1s (100 files)
• Plan generation: Comparable performance after initial setup
• Apply operations: No significant difference in execution time
• Memory usage: Terragrunt ~50MB vs Terraspace ~120MB base footprint

A principal cloud architect at an Australian government agency noted: “For our multi-region disaster recovery setup, Terragrunt’s lower resource overhead was crucial when running automated deployments across 12 different environments.”

Australian Compliance and Security Considerations

Australian organizations must consider compliance frameworks like the Essential Eight, ISM controls, and sector-specific requirements when selecting infrastructure tools.

Terragrunt’s minimal surface area reduces potential security vectors. The tool doesn’t require external runtimes beyond Terraform itself, simplifying security assessments and reducing dependency management overhead.

Terraspace introduces Ruby runtime dependencies that require ongoing security monitoring. However, the tool’s integrated testing capabilities can enhance security posture through automated validation workflows.

ACSC Essential Eight alignment:

• Application control: Both tools work within existing Terraform security models
• Patch applications: Terragrunt requires fewer dependency updates
• Administrative privileges: Standard Terraform IAM controls apply
• Multi-factor authentication: Integration with AWS/Azure identity services

The Privacy Act 1988 and Notifiable Data Breaches scheme require robust audit trails. Both tools support detailed logging, but Terragrunt’s HCL-based approach provides cleaner audit logs compared to Terraspace’s Ruby stack traces.

Making the Right Choice for Your Team

The decision between Terragrunt and Terraspace ultimately depends on your team’s specific requirements, existing expertise, and organizational constraints.

Choose Terragrunt when:

• Your team has strong Terraform expertise but limited Ruby knowledge
• You need maximum flexibility in project organization
• Compliance requirements favor minimal tool complexity
• You’re managing large-scale, performance-sensitive deployments
• Gradual migration from existing Terraform codebases is required

Choose Terraspace when:

• Your team has Ruby/Rails experience and prefers opinionated frameworks
• You value built-in testing and templating capabilities
• Standardized project structure across teams is important
• Dynamic configuration generation is a key requirement
• You’re starting fresh without legacy Terraform constraints

According to a 2023 survey by the DevOps Institute, 67% of teams prioritize tool familiarity over feature completeness when making infrastructure decisions. This reinforces the importance of aligning tool choice with existing team capabilities.

Both tools continue evolving with active development communities. Terragrunt benefits from Gruntwork’s commercial backing and extensive enterprise adoption. Terraspace leverages Ruby ecosystem innovations and appeals to development-oriented infrastructure teams.

The choice between Terragrunt vs Terraspace reflects broader philosophical differences in infrastructure management: flexibility versus convention, simplicity versus power, and gradual adoption versus complete transformation. Understanding these trade-offs ensures your infrastructure tooling supports long-term organizational success.