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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal 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 Tapaal' 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).

Tapaal versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal ITS-Tools Both tools   Tapaal ITS-Tools
All computed OK 29 203 1659   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools — — 0 Times tool wins 1551 340
Tapaal > ITS-Tools — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools — — 0 Times tool wins 1032 859
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 203 29 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 Tapaal computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where Tapaal 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus TY

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

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal TY Both tools   Tapaal TY
All computed OK 857 89 89   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = TY — — 0 Times tool wins 1566 211
Tapaal > TY — — 742   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < TY — — 0 Times tool wins 1344 433
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 856 176


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

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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus petrivet

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

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal petrivet Both tools   Tapaal petrivet
All computed OK 1338 2 350   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = petrivet — — 0 Times tool wins 1522 168
Tapaal > petrivet — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < petrivet — — 0 Times tool wins 1427 263
Do not compete 0 285 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 58 1105 207


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

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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus 2025-gold

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

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal 2025-gold Both tools   Tapaal 2025-gold
All computed OK 30 204 1658   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2025-gold — — 0 Times tool wins 1476 416
Tapaal > 2025-gold — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2025-gold — — 0 Times tool wins 1037 855
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 204 30 61


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

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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus BVT-2026

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

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

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal BVT-2026 Both tools   Tapaal BVT-2026
All computed OK 0 205 1688   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = BVT-2026 — — 0 Times tool wins 0 1893
Tapaal > BVT-2026 — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < BVT-2026 — — 0 Times tool wins 0 1893
Do not compete 0 60 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 265 0 0


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