And there are more unmentioned and even unknown to me, as I claim to be no expert in the field yet know that the above conditions and content are very important to an evaluation.Ĭould I recommend that some additional research on your part into such testing is worth your while? I would really enjoy seeing a more comprehensive follow-on to what you started here.

So while your test is one point on the map of efficiency or effectiveness, it just doesn’t seem to paint much of a picture of the efficiency of the programs under a variety of conditions and with pre-run context held constant.Īll these factors above are quite important to perform a real-world comprehensive test of the programs. copying MULTIPLE LARGE files, or MULTIPLE SMALL files, or a MIX OF LARGE AND SMALLl?Īnd I don’t see where you have RUN TESTS MULTIPLE TIMES to see if there is an average speed for each program for each scenario? TeraCopy alternatives FastCopy FastCopy is the fastest copy, delete, & sync software on Windows. A smaller read buffer is used for HDD mode, so write operations wont slow down disk thrashing. No more poor performance The writing and reading of data are multi-threaded in DiffHDD mode. So …that’s it? You tested ONE file? ONE time for each program? Did you clear Windows cache before each run? Apparently you DIDN’T test various scenario, i.e. TeraCopy has a smoother and more user-friendly interface, but FastCopy is really fast and boasts superior data package handling abilities.

Please excuse me, as I have some criticisms of the testing.

Fastcopy vs teracopy