fond
Model Checking Contest 2026
16th edition, Hamburg, Germany, June 23, 2026
2025-gold compared to other tools (
Last Updated
Jun 17, 2026

Introduction

This page presents how 2025-gold do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents 2025-gold' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

2025-gold versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  2025-gold ITS-Tools Both tools   2025-gold ITS-Tools
All computed OK 75 17 392   Smallest Memory Footprint
2025-gold = ITS-Tools — — 26 Times tool wins 780 1172
2025-gold > ITS-Tools — — 990   Shortest Execution Time
2025-gold < ITS-Tools — — 452 Times tool wins 1385 567
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 74 1


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where 2025-gold computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where 2025-gold computed less values than ITS-Tools, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

2025-gold wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

2025-gold versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for Tapaal, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  2025-gold Tapaal Both tools   2025-gold Tapaal
All computed OK 0 0 518   Smallest Memory Footprint
2025-gold = Tapaal — — 1338 Times tool wins 1735 200
2025-gold > Tapaal — — 30   Shortest Execution Time
2025-gold < Tapaal — — 49 Times tool wins 775 1160
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 18


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where 2025-gold computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where 2025-gold computed less values than Tapaal, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

2025-gold wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

2025-gold versus TY

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for TY, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to TY are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  2025-gold TY Both tools   2025-gold TY
All computed OK 1224 15 245   Smallest Memory Footprint
2025-gold = TY — — 24 Times tool wins 1413 537
2025-gold > TY — — 413   Shortest Execution Time
2025-gold < TY — — 29 Times tool wins 1395 555
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 25 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 1199 3


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where 2025-gold computed more values than TY, denote cases where 2025-gold computed less values than TY, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

2025-gold wins when points are below the diagonal, TY wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

2025-gold versus BVT-2026

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for BVT-2026, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to BVT-2026 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, 2025-gold is compared to BVT-2026. It is a good way to check how 2025-gold compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When 2025-gold is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  2025-gold BVT-2026 Both tools   2025-gold BVT-2026
All computed OK 0 17 519   Smallest Memory Footprint
2025-gold = BVT-2026 — — 694 Times tool wins 0 1952
2025-gold > BVT-2026 — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
2025-gold < BVT-2026 — — 722 Times tool wins 0 1952
Do not compete 0 1 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 0 0


For this tool, there are no real execution so comparisons are useless.