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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability 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 ITS-Tools' 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).

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for ITS-Tools 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 ITS-Tools to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal
All computed OK 18 226 353   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal — — 41 Times tool wins 1316 629
ITS-Tools > Tapaal — — 443   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal — — 864 Times tool wins 511 1434
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 226 18 8


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 ITS-Tools computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus TY

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for ITS-Tools 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 ITS-Tools to TY are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools TY Both tools   ITS-Tools TY
All computed OK 1101 45 243   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = TY — — 11 Times tool wins 1377 387
ITS-Tools > TY — — 267   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < TY — — 97 Times tool wins 1275 489
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 12 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 45 1089 189


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 ITS-Tools computed more values than TY, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus 2025-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for ITS-Tools and 1953 for 2025-gold, 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 ITS-Tools to 2025-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools 2025-gold Both tools   ITS-Tools 2025-gold
All computed OK 17 226 351   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2025-gold — — 45 Times tool wins 1173 772
ITS-Tools > 2025-gold — — 443   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2025-gold — — 863 Times tool wins 508 1437
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 226 17 8


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 ITS-Tools computed more values than 2025-gold, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than 2025-gold, 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus BVT-2026

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for ITS-Tools 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 ITS-Tools to BVT-2026 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools BVT-2026 Both tools   ITS-Tools BVT-2026
All computed OK 0 226 710   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = BVT-2026 — — 36 Times tool wins 0 1945
ITS-Tools > BVT-2026 — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < BVT-2026 — — 973 Times tool wins 0 1945
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 234 0 0


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