We're taking a look at the the features, performance, and compression rates of four file archiving and compression tools: the free and open source 7-Zip, the heavyweight WinRAR, the old-school WinZip, and the lesser-known MagicRAR.
Everyone who regularly works with computers handles compressed files on an almost daily basis, we'd guess. The archives come in many shapes and sizes, and you might not even realize that some files are compressed: software installation packages, picture formats, audio files, and many videos, for example.
Of course, the basic idea behind file compression is to decrease the space needed to store data, and, perhaps more important, cut down on the time it takes to transfer that information. That's the reason most folks compress their files. Perhaps you're using an email server with attachment limits, or maybe you're archiving your important user data for backup. In those cases, the time it takes to complete a compression job is ultimately less important than the compression rate you're able to achieve.

There are many tools for Windows that promise all of the compression and archiving functionality that anyone could ever need. The vast majority of them can handle ZIP, the most commonly-used compression format, along with a number of other popular formats, such as 7z, RAR, TAR, and GZIP.
Today, we benchmark three of the most well-known archiving and compression tools: 7-Zip, WinRAR, and WinZip. Not only do they support a massive number of formats, but they also integrate with Windows Explorer, making their functionality easy to access from where it’s actually needed. Some of the tools even offer additional features. For example, the latest version of WinZip include social media and cloud functionality. The more exotic MagicRAR, which claims to triple Windows’s built-in full-disk compression functionality, completes today’s round-up.
- Compression: Your Data, On A Diet
- 7-Zip 9.28b
- MagicRAR 8.0
- WinRAR 4.2
- WinZip 17 Pro
- Benchmark System, Software, And Settings
- Results: Proprietary Formats, HT Enabled
- Results: Proprietary Formats, HT Disabled
- Results: ZIP Format, HT Enabled
- Results: ZIP Format, HT Disabled
- Hyper-Threading Comparison: Proprietary And ZIP
- WinZip: OpenCL Versus CPU Performance
- And The Undisputed Winner Is...
Maybe contribute a few dollars to Igor Pavlov , the creator of 7Zip ?
2. PPMd is strictly for compressing text. It compresses text better than any other algo. But it is limited to 1 core only.
3. WinRar 4.2 is much better threaded than previous versions.
4.7z threading depends a lot on the type of file compressed. On large files, it can use 100% of any number of cores. For many small files, it generally uses only 1 complete core.
Maybe contribute a few dollars to Igor Pavlov , the creator of 7Zip ?
Could we have an AES-256 encryption comparison between CPUs and/or archive managers?
Like without encryption vs with encryption, encryption with and without OpenCL, etc.
2. PPMd is strictly for compressing text. It compresses text better than any other algo. But it is limited to 1 core only.
3. WinRar 4.2 is much better threaded than previous versions.
4.7z threading depends a lot on the type of file compressed. On large files, it can use 100% of any number of cores. For many small files, it generally uses only 1 complete core.
4. You mean the 7Z format rather than 7-Zip.
I've seen 7-Zip, using the Zip format, hitting 100% CPU usage when archiving around 1500 – 2000 files, the vast majority of which (like >75%, if not >90%) were tiny, about half under 100 B and the other half between 1 kB and 4 kB. But with the same set of files I did a quick test, and using LZMA2 to 7z it was using 1 and a bit cores (going by my total CPU usage).
Maybe you can add IZArc (http://www.izarc.org/) to the comparison.
Seriously, what. It randomly updates the facebook status, like: Imma zippin mah porn foldar! ? Or what?
The cloud part of WinZip can be useful for companies, but other than this, I don't see a single good reason why someone would not use 7-zip.
TAR is NOT and NEVER WAS a compression format. It's a UNIX tool used to create one file out of several for Tape ARchives.
And if you bring BZIP2 and GZIP compression formats, the primary compression format for UNIX vs ZIP the primary format for windows, maybe you oughta use the tools that have been around for 15+ years for these formats, you know the UNIX ones. Tools that had to be fast because they had no choice, because you can't waste CPU cycles or tape when your tape is only a few megs.
Thanks Toms!
Here are some stats from a comparison I did myself, on a scenario of some files, that are being compressed and sent to a backup-server on the Internet every single day. This is, in effect, a real practical example and not some random test data, which may or may not show the same characteristics as many of the available benchmarks.
The data from my tests may not be as scientifically accurate as yours in this review, mainly because this is not a clean workstation and the files were both read from and written to the same HDD, I fully understand that fact. But the results are still so significantly different, that some minor deviations from the hard-drive performance or background applications like an idle browser or the deactivated Avast! won't make much difference to the results.
The hardware and operating system used in my test:
Windows 7 SP1 64-bit
Intel i5-2500K (turbo deactivated, all 4 cores at 3.7 GHz)
16GB Kingston DDR3-1333 CL9 RAM
The programs I used:
WinRAR 4.20 64-Bit
7-Zip 9.30 alpha
The files I compressed:
962 files, total size 614.87 MB, average size ~ 655 KB
types are html, js, php and cgi in that order
The WinRAR settings I currently use:
rar, best compression, solid archive, lock archive, force text compression, 1024 KB dictionary size
The 7-Zip settings I tried (all with 4 threads):
a) 7z, ultra, lzma2, rest default values (32 MB dictionary, 64 word size, 4 GB block size)
b) 7z, maximum, lzma2, solid block size, rest default values (32 MB dictionary, 64 word size)
c) 7z, maximum, lzma2, 8 MB dictionary, 32 word size, solid block size
The results of the compression tests:
WinRAR - 125.62 MB - 2:12 minutes
7-Zip a) - 142.21 MB - 5:10 minutes
7-Zip b) - 144.48 MB - 4:33 minutes
7-Zip c) - 149.99 MB - 3:00 minutes
In the end, WinRAR is both one third faster than the fastest 7-Zip settings I used and it creates an over ten percent smaller archive than the smallest alternative file.
Maybe there is some unknown "golden setting" that I could achieve, by playing around with the dictionary, word and block sizes in 7-Zip. If someone knows of certain settings, that would work better than mine did for text-only files with a target compression rate of 20 percent, I would be grateful to hear about it.
As it stands though, I am very happy with my WinRAR.
Which is exactly why i want to see a benchmark. Sandy bridge onwards should show a huge jump from previous generations.