7-Zip VS WinZip V.12 – Best compression method

Posted on March 18, 2009 at 5:34 am

A few nights ago, I have blogged about 7-Zip VS WinZip VS WinRar.  It was a controversial test because as one reader commented, I did not use the other compression algorithms available in WinZip.  Upon realizing that, I did another test to satisfy this burning question: Could the best and latest compression method of WinZip beat 7-Zip?

To make sure I use the best compression algorithm, I have enabled it during WinZip’s installation:

image

For the test I have my 32 document files totaling about 54.1 MB:

image

Those 32 files are Windows Live Writer files. In my opinion, this file type ideally suits this test since it is a format that contains images and text files inside it (just like how doc formats work).  First I used 7-Zip to get a benchmark result.  The output was a 7z file with a size of 25.1 MB:

image

Then I used WinZip V.12’s best compression algorithm to generate a zip file.  The result is 25.2 MB:

image

I made sure I used the optimized algorithm by checking the options:

image

Clearly, 7-Zip still beat WinZip’s latest algorithm but only for a few bytes. 

If we subtract the exact difference of those two results there is a difference of 111,575 bytes or about 0.2% with respect to the original unzipped file:

Tool
Output in Bytes
WinZip
26,444,067
7-Zip
26,332,492
Delta
111,575

0.2% difference is not much of a difference but in terms of who’s better at document formats, I think it is safe to assume that 7-Zip could still beat WinZip although the margin would be slim and negligible to most casual users.

Now since WinZip is advertizing V.12’s new JPEG compression technology, I pitted it again against 7-Zip:

image

The files I zipped are 71 JPEG files with 81MB in total size.  We already know that 7-Zip is not good at JPEGs so I did not expect it to gain on this test.  On the other hand , I was really impressed with WinZip’s 20% margin! This is a great improvement for the whole zipping industry since now we can debunk the idea that JPEGs are not worth zipping. 

Do you know of other tools that could beat WinZip’s JPEG compression algorithm?  Post them on the comments section and I will give them all a try.

Ben show’s you how it’s done!

» Filed Under Software Reviews

Related Posts

Comments

9 Responses to “7-Zip VS WinZip V.12 – Best compression method”

  1. Charles Kane said on : April 8th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    WinZip = $30 (US)
    7Zip = 0, Zilch, Nada (International Currency)


  2. anonymouse said on : April 15th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    how about how the .zip of 7zip compares to that of winzip?


  3. LessRam said on : April 30th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    Now try it with the new Rar beta
    http://www.rarsoft.com/rarnew.htm

    Curious how that compares to WinZip / 7Zip


  4. Hellyu said on : June 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    Hi, I’m brazillian and I like Winzip very much. I want to suggest a new test using version 12.1 of Winzip, which has implemented a new format for compression called ZIPX. The compression ratio is fantastic and I wanted to see the results with this new version. Thanks!


  5. Chorlonga said on : August 4th, 2009 at 6:56 am

    There are many things to consider if you plan to BUY any compression software or opt for 7z.

    I became a fan of 7z because it compress like hell.

    Winzip is ordinary and if you do ZIP files with it, it’s a little better result over XP own zip, with better performance.

    To me is like this:
    Winzip 12.1 vs. Winrar 3.9 vs 7zip 4.65

    Winzip > compresses JPEG in 20%, ugly, good speed for standard ZIP format, bad for everything else. Bad splitting files.

    7zip > compresses everything but JPEG better than the rest, good interface. Lacks of many tools. Best Speed. Non-Invasive, free. Good security, allows to hide the file names with password, not just the contents.

    Winrar > good compression but no luck against 7zip and the new Winzip. The slowest on Best compression mode. THE BEST on Tools. Best splitting, allows to re-compress any file to the actual Winrar version. Allows to decompress a list of files, allows to compress a list of files to independent RAR files (maybe allows 3rd party too?). Non-Invasive. Good security, allows to hide the file names with password, not just the contents.


  6. Chorlonga said on : August 4th, 2009 at 7:00 am

    Forgot one thing.

    For 7zip, Winrar and new Winzip formats.

    If the “other” person that will receive your file doesn’t have some of this, they’ll have to download the app or you have to send them a self-extracting which will be filtered by most of the e-mail servers. So in the end most of the times you end up with a standard ZIP.

    And the most important thing is that output size always depend on the input type.

    Just testing (that’s why I’ve searched for this)
    14 Nintendo DS roms 488MB
    7zip 215MB (much better CPU performance)
    ZipX 217MB
    RAR 223MB
    ZIP 265MB


  7. Andrius Burlega said on : August 21st, 2009 at 8:48 am

    Trying to compress wav files. Will RAR be able to do something to reduce the size?


  8. mrsleep said on : October 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am

    Seriously?
    You’re excited about .02%?

    With the sizes of drives today, saving 20k, or even 100k just isn’t that big of a deal.

    I agree the 7zip is a great tool, but to make multiple blog posts pimping it?
    I sure hope they are paying you, or you’re getting something out of it.


  9. MikeyVA said on : October 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am

    I don’t think he was promoting 7-zip so much as highlighting that 7-zip (a free open source tool) outperformed a commercial tool that is $50! Even if the difference is neglible, it deflates (sorry) my expectations for the commercial tool. Why pay $50?


Please post your comments/suggestions!