- Mar 16, 2016
- 46
Winrar vs 7-Zip vs default Windows 10 compressed zipped. Which one should I use and why?
Winrar vs 7-Zip
- Thread starter 8-Bit Ghetto
- Start date
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
3rd-party compression are compatible with a wider range of compression formats, and can offer more options such as password-protection, VirusTotal support and more.
I have used 7-zip for several years without any issues, it's basic functionality is all I require. However, it may not be suitable for those looking for a fancy GUI. I deal with .7z and .zip.
Resource Usage / Performance varies with Foreground vs Background processing, but you can manually decrease the time it takes to Extract or Archive by switching to Performance Profile from the Battery icon on Windows System Tray.
I have used 7-zip for several years without any issues, it's basic functionality is all I require. However, it may not be suitable for those looking for a fancy GUI. I deal with .7z and .zip.
Resource Usage / Performance varies with Foreground vs Background processing, but you can manually decrease the time it takes to Extract or Archive by switching to Performance Profile from the Battery icon on Windows System Tray.
I think 7-zip is the best because it is free and do all the work without problems. 
Light and efficiant !
Light and efficiant !
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
7zip compression and winrar compression are nearly the same give or take a few secs faster for both rar zip and 7z extensions. Still behind you have a factor to consider which is your processor.
I have both for different needs. Unzipping and ziping rar and 7z.
Both 7z and rar methods are the smallest in terms of compression.
They also support additional file decompression methods.
Both good in their own way. Take your pick
I have both for different needs. Unzipping and ziping rar and 7z.
Both 7z and rar methods are the smallest in terms of compression.
They also support additional file decompression methods.
Both good in their own way. Take your pick
Both are equal IMO. I personally use 7-ZIP, and only to avoid the message that WINRAR constantly asks you to buy it when extracting files.
All of the archivers are essentially equivalent.
WinRAR had a vulnerability and was exploited for years - until it was fixed recently.
When using an archiver, one should always add it to their anti-exploit protection of choice - if you use an anti-exploit and if the anti-exploit permits you to add the archiver.
WinRAR had a vulnerability and was exploited for years - until it was fixed recently.
When using an archiver, one should always add it to their anti-exploit protection of choice - if you use an anti-exploit and if the anti-exploit permits you to add the archiver.
- Dec 3, 2015
- 938
I would choose 7zip because:
File size : The size of a RAR or ZIP archive, as well as the size of any single file within a RAR archive, is limited to 8,589,934,591 GB. The minimum size of a RAR file is 20 bytes
7zip - Supporting files with sizes up to 16000000000 GB
Compression algorithms - WinRar has proprietary. 7zip uses LZMA derivatives, Bzip. Deflate, etc.
7Zip is slightly better for data compression. 7zip,winrar,zip,arc have poor performance with audio/video due to lossless compression as compared to aac,ogg,mpeg,etc.
7zip also has a theme manager 7-Zip Theme Manager similar to rarlab themes(which I absolutely like )
File size : The size of a RAR or ZIP archive, as well as the size of any single file within a RAR archive, is limited to 8,589,934,591 GB. The minimum size of a RAR file is 20 bytes
7zip - Supporting files with sizes up to 16000000000 GB
Compression algorithms - WinRar has proprietary. 7zip uses LZMA derivatives, Bzip. Deflate, etc.
7Zip is slightly better for data compression. 7zip,winrar,zip,arc have poor performance with audio/video due to lossless compression as compared to aac,ogg,mpeg,etc.
7zip also has a theme manager 7-Zip Theme Manager similar to rarlab themes(which I absolutely like )
Last edited:
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
Using 7Zip for years. Slightly better compression and by the terms of lightness I would say Winrar and 7Zip are the same, or one unnoticeable faster. Like about 7Zip that it can open almost all package installers. Winrar on the other hand has a password manager which I would like to see in 7Zip also.
Long story short, it's just a personal preference which one you'll use.
Long story short, it's just a personal preference which one you'll use.
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
A matter of choices, of course people will go to the free one where 7-zip can offer without charges compare to Winrar.
Little difference of compression rate but both of them can help already to your needs in the archived files.
Honestly those possible limitations to each other (vice versa) are likely not needed by all of users nowadays.
Little difference of compression rate but both of them can help already to your needs in the archived files.
Honestly those possible limitations to each other (vice versa) are likely not needed by all of users nowadays.
winrar is better overal for me
the reasons I choose winrar because it allows me to run a portable program with multiple files (or something similar) without extracting them. With 7-zip you have to extract to let it run or it will say missing files. Moreover, you can use control+C control+V in winrar. Last time I work with 7-zip it didn't have this, not sure how it is now
7z speed and compession are a lot better than winrar but for usability, winrar wins
does anyone know how to make 7-zip act like winrar as I mentioned above?
the reasons I choose winrar because it allows me to run a portable program with multiple files (or something similar) without extracting them. With 7-zip you have to extract to let it run or it will say missing files. Moreover, you can use control+C control+V in winrar. Last time I work with 7-zip it didn't have this, not sure how it is now
7z speed and compession are a lot better than winrar but for usability, winrar wins
does anyone know how to make 7-zip act like winrar as I mentioned above?
Similar threads
