Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is an important type of arrhythmia with a risk of sudden death. Although implanted cardiac defibrillation and radiofrequency ablation are used together with medical treatments for VT, the treatment options are limited in cases that do not respond to them. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) applied to VT substrates in resistant cases is an emerging treatment with positive results. Such clinical results have increased the interest in this subject. However, the ideal treatment device and method have not yet been described for this therapy, which is generally applied at a single fraction using various devices and methods. Herein, treatment planning was conducted for a total of 8 patients (11 VT substrates) using the Varian TrueBeam EDGE and TomoTherapy Radixact devices at a single center, and the results were compared dosimetrically. The Wilcoxon-signed rank test was used for the statistical analysis, and mean values were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). In the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) plans, the plan coverages and conformity indexes were similar; meanwhile, the homogeneity indexes were 0.10 (IQR = 0.05) and 0.07 (IQR = 0.05), respectively, and were significantly better in the HT plan (p = 0.02). The gradient indexes were 3.18 (IQR = 0.8) and 5.33 (IQR = 3.68) in the VMAT and HT plans, respectively, and were significantly better in the VMAT plan. For the organs at risk, similar doses were observed. The maximum doses for the stomach and esophagus and the mean doses for the left lung and both lungs were significantly lower in the VMAT plan. Similarly, the maximum and mean doses for the cardiac substructures and great vessels were significantly lower in the VMAT plan. More homogeneous plans were obtained in HT, while a faster dose reduction and lower critical organ dose were observed in VMAT. Reasonable myocardial SABR plans could be obtained with both techniques. The effects of the dosimetric differences on the clinical outcomes should be evaluated in prospective clinical studies.