What does HackerNews think of vm-bhyve?
Shell based, minimal dependency bhyve manager
# vm list
NAME DATASTORE LOADER CPU MEMORY VNC AUTO STATE
access default bhyveload 2 8G - No Stopped
cicd default bhyveload 2 6G - No Running (33065)
feeds default grub 2 4G - No Running (35227)
gate default bhyveload 2 4G - Yes [1] Running (21012)
k8s-master0 default grub 2 4G - Yes [4] Running (1543)
k8s-node0 default grub 6 64G - Yes [5] Running (9988)
mail default bhyveload 3 8G - Yes [3] Running (87082)
ml default grub 4 24G - No Running (64236)
registry default bhyveload 2 2G - No Running (47712)
repos default bhyveload 2 2G - No Running (14767)
web default bhyveload 2 4G - Yes [2] Running (92365)
Other than that, I use bhyve on my laptop daily since around 2015-2016. It was somewhat painful at first. I had to bake a CD key into Windows ISO for headless install but now VNC support exists and it's easy to output any graphical installer via VNC.bhyve doesn't offer API and has not the most user-friendly interface (vm-bhyve[1] for the rescue!) but overall, I couldn't be happier with its - typical for FreeBSD - set-and-forget stability.
Things have just worked and I've really not had any issues with it in the years it's run. The VMs are stored on a mirrored zfs zpool with sparse volumes so they only take up space they actually need.
All that said, I find the bhyve config language and command line options to be pretty painful, so I've been only using it with this frontend: https://github.com/churchers/vm-bhyve
https://github.com/churchers/vm-bhyve
It is nice that there are multiple wrappers around bhyve - competition is good, and it shows a healthy community.