| COMPRESSION BENCHMARK | BROTLI VSZSTANDARD | MAXIMUM COMPRESSION | FASTER THAN ZIP | LARGE ARCHIVES |
-
MAXIMUMCOMPRESSION BENCHMARKSETTINGS
-
MAXCOMPRESSION/DECOMPRESSION PERFORMANCES TEST
-
CONCLUSIONS:BEST FILE COMPRESSOR
Maxcompression/ decompression performances test
Maximum compressionbenchmark methodsBenchmarkinput data is saved to system disk (PCIe SSD) and compressed to systemdisk, same partition, separate directory; the resulting archives arethen extracted toseparate directory on same (system) disk/partition.
Each compression and extraction test is repeated 10 times to get anaverage value; size is expressed in MB, time in seconds.
Each archive format is is tested with minimum (fastest non-storelevel), default, and maximumcompression settings.
Default compression algorithm and default compression settings, aspre-set out of the box by file archivers being tested (PeaZip, WinRar,and WinZip), are employed for each format / level.
For Brotli and Zstandard compression, the input data was consolidatedin a single TAR archive for running the benchmark
Maximumcompressionbenchmark resultstable, the lower the better for all columns
| Utility, format, level | CompressionSSD (sec) | Archivesize (MB) | Compressionratio | Extraction SSD (sec) |
| PeaZip,7Z, fastest | 3.5 | 92.90 | 30.66% | 0.9 |
| PeaZip,7Z, default | 39.6 | 73.60 | 24.29% | 1.0 |
| PeaZip,7Z, ultra | 125.0 | 71.40 | 23.56% | 2.7 |
| PeaZip,ARC, 1 | 1.4 | 109.00 | 35.97% | 1.9 |
| PeaZip,ARC, 4 | 17.2 | 71.70 | 23.66% | 7.1 |
| PeaZip,ARC, 9 | 81.0 | 66.10 | 21.82% | 40.8 |
| PeaZip,ZPAQ, fast | 6.3 | 102.00 | 33.66% | 2.1 |
| PeaZip,ZPAQ, normal | 37.2 | 68.50 | 22.61% | 26.8 |
| PeaZip,ZPAQ, ultra | 354.0 | 57.60 | 19.01% | 356.0 |
| PeaZip,Brotli (max) | 190.0 | 82.60 | 27.26% | 1.3 |
| PeaZipZstandard (max) | 107.0 | 76.80 | 25.335% | 1.0 |
| WinRar,RAR, fastest | 2.0 | 106.00 | 34.98% | 1.0 |
| WinRar,RAR, normal | 13.8 | 80.40 | 26.53% | 1.0 |
| WinRar,RAR, best | 48.0 | 78.90 | 26.04% | 1.8 |
| WinZip,ZIPX, fastest | 3.0 | 105.00 | 34.65% | 4.5 |
| WinZip,ZIPX, enhanced deflate | 21.0 | 94.00 | 31.02% | 5.0 |
| WinZip,ZIPX, best method | 34.7 | 70.70 | 23.33% | 46.2 |
Maximum compressionratioresults
ZPAQ reached maximum compression ratio, compressing the 303.00 MB inputdown to 57.60 MB (19.01%), followed by ARC with output reduced to 66.10MB. ZIPX and 7Z were able to reduce the input size to 70.70 MB and71.40 MB respectively, and RAR scored the most poor compressionperformance with 78.90 MB output employing best compression setting.
All format shown a significant improvement in compression ratioswitching from fastest to best compression settings, but for mostformats most of the advantage emerged switching from fastest to defaultcompression settings.
Especially, 7Z and RAR format shown very small improvements fromdefault to ultra settings - which, as you can see in following chapter,comes at cost of much longer compression times.
The exception to this behavior is ZIPX format, providing a mediocredeflate based compression unless switching to alternate compressionalgorithms, with maximum compression, comparable to 7Z ultra, beingattained using "best method" settings.
Even if usually associated with fast compression, both Brotli and Zstdcompressors attained quite high compression ratios when used at maximumcompression settings, with Zstandard being the best of the two andcompressing slightly better than RAR at best compression level (andBrotli slighly worse).
Both, however, compressed less than 7Z at medium compression level.
Maximum compressionspeedresults
Compression times increases for all format with the increase ofcompression settings, generally with best returns (in terms ofcompression ratio improvements) switching from fastest to defaultcompression settings, and diminishing returns switching to ultra/bestsettings.
At maximum compression level, ZIPX is the fastest format, followed byRAR, ARC, and 7Z, ZPAQ being the slowest.
Using moderate compression settings, RAR and ARC emerge as the fastestformats.
Brotli suffered a noticeable performance penality when used at maximumcompression level, being the second slowest compressor.
Zstandard too took a seizable performance hit, but overall remailsnoticeably faster than Brotly when both are used at maximum compressionlevel,
Maximum compressionextraction speed results
RAR and 7Z formats shows a clear advantage in terms of extraction speedcompared to all other formats, with decompression times staying under 3seconds even at higher compression levels.
ARC, ZIPX, and ZPAQ decompression speed increases significantly at highcompression settings, with ARC being generally comparable or better inspeed than ZIPX, and ZPAQ being the slowest.
It is noteworthy to point out that both Brotli and Zstandard excels inextraction speed even for archives created at maximum compressionsettings, and are amongst the fastest extractors in this benchmark,with a slight advantage for Zstd in terms of speed.
Conclusions:best file compressor
Best format formaximum possible compression ratio
ZPAQ is thewinner interms of maximum attainable compression,but is slower than other formats.
ZPAQ at maximum compression level reached a 19.01% compression ratioversus 21.82% reached by ARC at maximum compression level, the secondbest result of the benchmark.
Anyway, even ZPAQ at default level can compare favorably (in terms ofcompression ratio versus speed tradeoff) with other formats at bestcompression settings - only ARC at highest level surpassing itscompression ratio - with a 10x speed advantage of ZPAQ defaultvs ZPAQ ultra.
For all formats excluding ZIPX, average compression settingsrepresented an optimal tradeoff between compression ratio andcompression speed, with diminishing returns for switching to highestcompression levels.
For all format each compression level increase represented an highercomputational cost (with longer compression times), for smallerimprovements in compression ratio.
For this reason it can be recommended to use other methods thanincreasing compression level to keep the output below a desiredthreshold, in example spanning the outpputtomultiple volumes of fixed size in order to meet maximum sizeconstrains, or deduplicateinput data beforecompression.
This is even more true when compressing data sets containingmultimedia, or encrypted files, which generally does not compresswell, or does not compress at all regardless employedalgorithm/settings.
Unlike compression speed, which generally scaled uniformly withincreasing of compression level, extraction speed was more correlatedwith the archive format nature, with 7Z and RAR decompression timesremain fast (well below 3 seconds) at any compression level.
Benchmarkconclusionsin brief:
What is the mostpowerful file compressor?
ZPAQ is clearly the top performing format in this benchmark focused onmaximum attainable compression.
What is theoverallbest compression format?
It depends on user'sneed, with compression ratio being only one factorof the equation.
ZPAQ and ARC are the best compressors, but 7Z and RAR formats has aclear advantage in terms of decompression speed, fasterthan for any other tested format.
7Z vs RAR, whichisthe best compressor?
7Z outperformed RAR in terms ofcompression ratio at all compressionlevels, but RAR outperformed 7Z in terms of compression speed.
Extraction speed is quite similar, and keeps reasonable for bothformats at all compression levels.Are Brotli andZstandard suited for max compression?
Brotli and Zstd can provide surprisingly good compression ratios, evenif they are designed primarily for fast compression tasks, withZstandard being overall the best choice.
It must be noted the performance penality is very relevant in terms ofcompression speed, with traditional compression formats like 7Z and RARbeing more fit for this task.
However, decompression speed remains very high even extracting BR andZST files compressed at maximum settings.
Is it worth to setbest /maximum / ultra compression settings?
Increasing compression level decreases performances with diminishingreturns. File spanning and data deduplication are recomended inalternative to higher compression settings, and solid compressionoption is a must to attain highest compression ratio when multiplesimilar files are involved - even if single files are not compressible(in the traditional sense) taken one by one.
Read more about how to create 7Zfiles, or alternatively how tocreate ARC files, or howto create PAQ / ZPAQ files if maximum compression is needed. Pleasenote PeaZip is also capable to createRAR files if WinRar is installed in the system, and to create ZIPX files following thenew WinZip standard (even if not all allowed algorithms are yetsupported).
Synopsis: Maximum filecompression benchmark. 7Z, ARC, ZIPX versus RAR comparison for best,most powerful compressor format. What algorithm compresses the most.What archive format reach highest compression ratio. Which filearchiver utility compresses better. What are the best compressionoptions and settings.
Topics: maximum compressionbenchmark, best file compressor, best archive format for maxcompression, 7z vs rar vs zpaq
PeaZip > Compressionbenchmark > Maximum compression benchmark: 7z, arc, zpaq vs rar, zipx
