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 StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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 tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3710 runs (1855 for ITS-Tools and 1855 for tedd, so there are 1855 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 tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools tedd Both tools   ITS-Tools tedd
All computed OK 13 514 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = tedd — — 1 Times tool wins 784 856
ITS-Tools > tedd — — 17   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < tedd — — 1095 Times tool wins 152 1488
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 514 13 215


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 tedd, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than tedd, 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, tedd wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus TY

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3710 runs (1855 for ITS-Tools and 1855 for TY, so there are 1855 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 817 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = TY — — 0 Times tool wins 1030 96
ITS-Tools > TY — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < TY — — 309 Times tool wins 969 157
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 817 729


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 3710 runs (1855 for ITS-Tools and 1855 for petrivet, so there are 1855 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 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 1024 1 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = petrivet — — 0 Times tool wins 1027 100
ITS-Tools > petrivet — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < petrivet — — 102 Times tool wins 1059 68
Do not compete 0 336 0
Error detected 0 10 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 181 858 548


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 3710 runs (1855 for ITS-Tools and 1855 for 2025-gold, so there are 1855 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 13 514 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2025-gold — — 1 Times tool wins 811 829
ITS-Tools > 2025-gold — — 19   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2025-gold — — 1093 Times tool wins 159 1481
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 514 13 215


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 3710 runs (1855 for ITS-Tools and 1855 for BVT-2026, so there are 1855 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 0 512 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = BVT-2026 — — 30 Times tool wins 0 1621
ITS-Tools > BVT-2026 — — 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < BVT-2026 — — 1079 Times tool wins 0 1621
Do not compete 0 215 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 727 0 0


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