Performance Results: HoloCodec vs Competition

The Sweet Spot: Better Compression, Practical Speed

HoloCodec fills the gap between fast general-purpose compressors and extreme-ratio archival compressors

Compression Ratio

HoloCodec vs General-Purpose
WINS
Beats 7-Zip (LZMA) and Zstandard on ratio
HoloCodec vs Extreme Compressors
APPROACHES
Near cmix-level compression but doesn't surpass it 
Typical Ratios (enwik9):

7-Zip (LZMA2 -mx9):    ~4.2:1
Zstandard (max):       ~3.8:1
───────────────────────────────
HoloCodec:             ~5.1:1  ✓
───────────────────────────────
cmix:                  ~8.4:1  ⭐

Compression Speed

HoloCodec vs General-Purpose
SLOWER
More analysis overhead, but still practical
HoloCodec vs Extreme Compressors
10× FASTER
Order of magnitude faster than cmix 
Relative Speed (enwik9):

Zstandard (max):       1.0×   (baseline)
7-Zip (LZMA2 -mx9):    0.6×
───────────────────────────────
HoloCodec:             0.4×   ⚡
───────────────────────────────
cmix:                  0.03×  🐌

Benchmark Summary

Compressor Compression Ratio Speed (MB/s) Use Case vs HoloCodec
Zstandard (max) 3.8:1 ~25 MB/s General-purpose, fast Lower ratio
7-Zip (LZMA2 -mx9) 4.2:1 ~15 MB/s Desktop archival Lower ratio
HoloCodec 5.1:1 ~10 MB/s High-ratio practical Baseline
cmix 8.4:1 ~0.8 MB/s Extreme archival Higher ratio, 12× slower
Compression Advantage
+21% vs 7-Zip
Better ratio than LZMA2 maximum setting
Speed Advantage
12× vs cmix
Order of magnitude faster than extreme compressors
Compression Gap
-40% vs cmix
Approaches but doesn't reach extreme compression

The Value Proposition

✓ What HoloCodec Achieves

  • Superior ratio to mainstream compressors (7-Zip, Zstandard)
  • Practical speed for real-world use (~10 MB/s on enwik9)
  • Intelligent routing via FA-CVM segmentation
  • Multi-head architecture optimized per segment type
  • Production-ready for archival workloads

⚠ Current Limitations

  • Slower than general-purpose compressors (analysis overhead)
  • Doesn't match cmix extreme compression ratios
  • Memory usage higher than lightweight compressors
  • Complexity trade-off for improved ratios
  • Still evolving – room for optimization
16 / 22