Archive extractor benchmark: Karuzip, 7-Zip, WinRAR, and Lhaplus
This page answers the narrower question: once you already know you want an archive app, which one fits the measured tradeoffs best? We kept Karuzip, 7-Zip, WinRAR, and Lhaplus in the same frame and left the awkward results visible.
Test environment and method
- Machine: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, 32 GB RAM, NVMe SSD, Windows 11 Pro build 26200.
- Initial run on 2026-07-10: Karuzip v1.0.3 bundled 7-Zip 25.01, WinRAR 7.23, and Lhaplus 1.7.4 under default settings.
- Rerun on 2026-07-29: Karuzip v1.3.0, standalone 7-Zip 25.01, and WinRAR 7.23 with five-run medians.
- Karuzip GUI-path boundary: v1.3.0's parallel deflate is a GUI-only path for one unencrypted, not-already-compressed 16 MiB–4 GiB file at the automatic level. Because the published scripts cannot invoke it, the Scenario 3 Karuzip rows measure the bundled 7-Zip engine. Reproducible GUI-path timing remains unpublished.
- Dataset A: 1,000 files totaling 378,880,000 bytes, each about 370 KB and deliberately harder to compress than the dataset used on the Windows-built-in benchmark page.
- Dataset B: one text-heavy file totaling 209,717,377 bytes.
- Lhaplus note: it was not timed in the rerun because it has no reproducible command-line path for scripted timing. Its support limits were still tested and reported.
- Reproducibility: the raw rerun measurements and scripts are published in karuzip-bench.
Rerun on 2026-07-29 (n=5)
The rerun regenerated the datasets from the public scripts, so the byte totals stayed the same while the contents changed. Read the rerun tables on their own terms instead of treating them as a direct delta from the initial run.
Scenario 1: compress 1,000 files into ZIP
| Tool | Median time | Output ZIP | Relative speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karuzip v1.3.0 bundled 7-Zip 25.01 | 2.50 s | 122.6 MB | Fastest baseline |
| 7-Zip 25.01 standalone | 2.51 s | 122.6 MB | About 1.0x |
| WinRAR 7.23 ZIP | 4.14 s | 129.8 MB | About 1.7x |
Karuzip and 7-Zip were effectively tied because they are the same engine family here. WinRAR was slower and produced a larger ZIP in this many-file scenario.
Scenario 2: extract the same 1,000-file ZIP
| Tool | Median time | Relative speed |
|---|---|---|
| WinRAR 7.23 | 2.25 s | Fastest baseline |
| Karuzip v1.3.0 bundled 7-Zip 25.01 | 2.91 s | About 1.3x |
This is one of the negative results that should stay visible: WinRAR extracted the rerun ZIP faster than Karuzip in this scenario, although the absolute difference was still well under one second.
Scenario 3: compress one text-heavy file
| Tool and format | Median time | Output size | Compression ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| WinRAR ZIP | 1.44 s | 45.8 MB | 21.8% |
| WinRAR RAR | 2.51 s | 43.8 MB | 20.9% |
| Karuzip bundled 7-Zip ZIP | 14.79 s | 44.0 MB | 21.0% |
| Karuzip bundled 7-Zip 7z | 29.27 s | 38.8 MB | 18.5% |
WinRAR won the reproducible rerun single-file ZIP speed test by a large margin against Karuzip's bundled 7-Zip engine path. The table does not measure the v1.3.0 GUI-only parallel-deflate path, whose reproducible timing remains pending. The bundled engine won only if the target was the smaller 7z output, which took much longer to produce.
Initial run on 2026-07-10
The initial run stays published because it explains why the rerun needs context instead of a single marketing headline.
Scenario 1: compress 1,000 files into ZIP
| Tool | Median time | Output ZIP | Relative speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karuzip bundled 7-Zip 25.01 | 1.05 s | 111.1 MB | Fastest baseline |
| WinRAR 7.23 ZIP | 4.01 s | 111.6 MB | About 3.8x |
Scenario 2: extract the same ZIP
| Tool | Median time | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Karuzip bundled 7-Zip 25.01 | 2.01 s | Tied |
| WinRAR 7.23 | 2.01 s | Tied |
Scenario 3: compress one text-heavy file
| Tool and format | Median time | Output size | Compression ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karuzip ZIP | 2.01 s | 41.2 MB | 19.6% |
| WinRAR ZIP | 2.01 s | 46.6 MB | 22.2% |
| WinRAR RAR | 2.01 s | 41.4 MB | 19.7% |
| Karuzip 7z | About 62 s | 34.1 MB | 16.3% |
The first run made Karuzip look stronger on this scenario than the rerun did, which is exactly why the dataset note matters. The correct reading is not "the product became bad" but "the dataset changed, so a one-line winner story is unsafe."
Lhaplus limits that still matter
| Check | Measured result |
|---|---|
| Updates | Lhaplus 1.7.4 remained the final public version from 2017. |
| Architecture | 32-bit only. |
| ZIP containing a file larger than 4 GB | Failed after progress reached about 92%, with no successful extraction. |
| 7z support | Not supported. |
The benchmark does not argue that Lhaplus instantly breaks in every case. It does show that newer archive habits, especially large files and 7z, leave it with hard practical limits.
Feature and support matrix
| Question | Karuzip | 7-Zip 25.01 | WinRAR 7.23 | Lhaplus 1.7.4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | Free | Free | Paid after trial expectations | Free |
| Ads or bundles | None | None | None | None |
| Japanese GUI | Native | Language file route | Yes | Yes |
| 64-bit and >4 GB extraction | Yes | Yes | Yes | No in the measured ZIP test |
| Create and extract 7z | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Create RAR | No | No | Yes | No |
| Create AES-256 ZIP | Yes | Yes | Yes | Legacy ZipCrypto focus |
| Auto-update | Yes | No | No | No |
What this benchmark actually supports
- Choose Karuzip or 7-Zip for many-file ZIP and 7z workflows. The measured core engine is effectively the same there, so the choice turns into interface, update path, and workflow preference.
- Choose WinRAR if RAR creation is mandatory. It also won the rerun single-file ZIP speed test and the rerun extraction test.
- Do not use Lhaplus as the default recommendation for new users. The measured 4 GB failure and missing 7z support are practical blockers, not cosmetic ones.
- Do not oversimplify the dataset story. The rerun narrowed or reversed some gaps, so the honest answer depends on the type of archive work.
Official references
Frequently asked questions
Are Karuzip and 7-Zip different in raw ZIP and 7z speed?
Not in the benchmarked ZIP and 7z paths. Karuzip uses bundled 7-Zip 25.01 as the main engine there, so the raw numbers were effectively tied when the same engine path was measured.
When did WinRAR win?
WinRAR won the rerun extraction of the 1,000-file ZIP and clearly beat the bundled 7-Zip engine in the scripted single-file ZIP test, by about ten times. That comparison does not include Karuzip v1.3.0's GUI-only parallel-deflate path; reproducible timing for that path is still pending.
Is Lhaplus still a safe default choice?
The benchmark does not support that conclusion. Lhaplus stopped updating in 2017, stayed 32-bit, failed the measured extraction of a ZIP containing a file larger than 4 GB, and does not support 7z.
Should I compare this page directly with the Windows 11 built-in benchmark?
No. That page uses different datasets and answers a different question. Use this page for archive-app-to-archive-app choices, and the other page for built-in Windows versus archive-app boundaries.
Related guides
Choose the workflow, then use the right guide
This benchmark tells you where each tool wins or loses. Use the product guide and download page after that, so the benchmark stays a benchmark instead of taking on more third-party runtime.