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 ReachabilityDeadlock 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 30 minutes 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 203 29 1659   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal — — 0 Times tool wins 340 1551
ITS-Tools > Tapaal — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal — — 0 Times tool wins 859 1032
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 29 203 62


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 30 minutes 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 970 28 89   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = TY — — 0 Times tool wins 1502 388
ITS-Tools > TY — — 803   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < TY — — 0 Times tool wins 1759 131
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 28 969 63


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 petrivet

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for ITS-Tools and 1953 for petrivet, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to petrivet are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools petrivet Both tools   ITS-Tools petrivet
All computed OK 1511 1 351   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = petrivet — — 0 Times tool wins 1645 218
ITS-Tools > petrivet — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < petrivet — — 0 Times tool wins 1615 248
Do not compete 0 285 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 35 1256 56


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 petrivet, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than petrivet, 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, petrivet 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 30 minutes 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 8 8 1854   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2025-gold — — 0 Times tool wins 793 1077
ITS-Tools > 2025-gold — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2025-gold — — 0 Times tool wins 1370 500
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 8 83


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 30 minutes 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 31 1862   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = BVT-2026 — — 0 Times tool wins 0 1893
ITS-Tools > BVT-2026 — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < BVT-2026 — — 0 Times tool wins 0 1893
Do not compete 0 60 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 91 0 0


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