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 LTLCardinality 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 11 19 1124   Smallest Memory Footprint
2025-gold = ITS-Tools — — 126 Times tool wins 1432 520
2025-gold > ITS-Tools — — 297   Shortest Execution Time
2025-gold < ITS-Tools — — 375 Times tool wins 1508 444
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 11 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 1 0 1271   Smallest Memory Footprint
2025-gold = Tapaal — — 642 Times tool wins 1426 507
2025-gold > Tapaal — — 10   Shortest Execution Time
2025-gold < Tapaal — — 9 Times tool wins 953 980
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1 20


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 1642 17 178   Smallest Memory Footprint
2025-gold = TY — — 0 Times tool wins 1828 122
2025-gold > TY — — 113   Shortest Execution Time
2025-gold < TY — — 0 Times tool wins 1819 131
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 1640 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 19 1277   Smallest Memory Footprint
2025-gold = BVT-2026 — — 226 Times tool wins 0 1952
2025-gold > BVT-2026 — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
2025-gold < BVT-2026 — — 430 Times tool wins 0 1952
Do not compete 0 1 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 20 0 0


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