7z versus rar -- strong everyday compression for Windows

[Bob]

I've just uploaded a small comparative test of the two compression

formats, 7z and rar. The motive for the test was partly curiosity: I was
curious to know how my favourite compression format (7z) and my
favourite archiver (7-Zip) fare against the strong and famous WinRAR.

I'm thinking of repeating the tests for another two sets of files, to
give a more balanced picture, but I don't know what types of files to
choose. Any suggestions? What types of files do you compress most often?

Greetings,
Demetris

FYI, test data that was mentioned in ACF less than two years ago.

QUOTE

Maybe some clarification about the volumes after compression:
Today I received a copy of a Dutch computer magazine. In one of the
articles there are 6 applications compared: WinRAR 3.0, PowerArchiver
8.0, Stuffit Deluxe 7.5, WinZip 8.1, ZipCentral 4.1 and ZipGenius 1.4.

For each application the compression is compared of a directory
containing some (big) BMP-pictures, some Word and HTML documents, and a
big TXT-file. All together it was a directory of approx. 32Mb.

With each application there was performed a ZIP compression and a
compression in it's own format.

This were the results:
WinRAR - rar - 59,45% after compression (in 1 minute, 23 seconds)
WinRAR - zip - 72,62% after compression (in 32 seconds)
PowerArchiver - zip - 72,75% after compression (in 35 seconds)
Stuffit Deluxe - sit - 55,76% after compression (in 1 minute, 28
seconds)
Stuffit Deluxe - zip - 69,54% after compression (in 51 seconds)
WinZip - zip - 72,61% after compression (in 40 seconds)
ZipCentral - zip - 72,61% after compression (in 38 seconds)
ZipGenius - zip - 72,22% after compression (in 46 seconds)

(Source: PCM - january 2003)

The above proves to my humble opinion that the freeware zippers
(ZipCentral and ZipGenius) are equal to the payware applications. Only
the 'sit'-compression of Stuffit Deluxe gives a better compression-
result.

With kind regards,
--
Henk de Jong

QUOTE

7-zip and some others were not included at that time.

BoB

 

[Demetris]

FYI, test data that was mentioned in ACF less than two years ago.

QUOTE [...]
The above proves to my humble opinion that the freeware zippers
(ZipCentral and ZipGenius) are equal to the payware applications. Only
the 'sit'-compression of Stuffit Deluxe gives a better compression-
result.

Thanks, Bob,

I was not aware of this post.

Now things are even better for cost-free archivers. TUGZip and IZArc are
very good, while 7-Zip seems to be better than almost all archivers,
free and pay, in zip compressing. WinZip 10.0 has a new method that they
say is very strong, but it makes backwards incompatible zips that only
open in WinZip 10.0 for now.

Greetings,
Demetris