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

Introduction

This page presents how TY 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 TY' 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).

TY versus ITS-Tools

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

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


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

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

memory chart time chart

TY versus Tapaal

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

Statistics on the executions
  TY Tapaal Both tools   TY Tapaal
All computed OK 20 1284 235   Smallest Memory Footprint
TY = Tapaal — — 42 Times tool wins 596 1351
TY > Tapaal — — 24   Shortest Execution Time
TY < Tapaal — — 342 Times tool wins 550 1397
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 12 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1272 20 6


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 TY computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where TY 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.

TY wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

TY versus 2025-gold

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

Statistics on the executions
  TY 2025-gold Both tools   TY 2025-gold
All computed OK 20 1285 234   Smallest Memory Footprint
TY = 2025-gold — — 42 Times tool wins 541 1407
TY > 2025-gold — — 26   Shortest Execution Time
TY < 2025-gold — — 341 Times tool wins 549 1399
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 12 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1273 20 5


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 TY computed more values than 2025-gold, denote cases where TY 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.

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

memory chart time chart

TY versus BVT-2026

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

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

Statistics on the executions
  TY BVT-2026 Both tools   TY BVT-2026
All computed OK 6 1288 248   Smallest Memory Footprint
TY = BVT-2026 — — 12 Times tool wins 6 1945
TY > BVT-2026 — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
TY < BVT-2026 — — 397 Times tool wins 6 1945
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 12 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1278 0 0


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