gene.zip · Compare

Smaller than PetaGene, CRAM, SPRING and gzip.

More size reduction than the tools you know — and unlike most of them, every byte stays instantly readable with a byte-exact restore.

Size reduction vs original

How much each tool shrinks raw genomic data

Higher is better — percentage of the original file size removed. Representative figures for sequencing data (FASTQ / BAM).

gzipgeneral-purpose
70% · 3.3×
CRAMreference-based
80% · 5.0×
PetaGenecommercial
85% · 6.7×
SPRINGFASTQ specialist
87% · 7.7×
gene.zipthis is us
92% · 12.5×
0%50%100% (original)
Head to head

The numbers, side by side

Tool Compression ratio Size reduction Remaining size gene.zip is… Instant random access Byte-exact restore
gzip3.3×70%30% of original 73% smaller NoYes
CRAM5.0×80%20% of original 60% smaller Region slicesYes (lossless mode)
PetaGene6.7×85%15% of original 47% smaller YesYes
SPRING7.7×87%13% of original 38% smaller No (full decompress)Yes (lossless mode)
gene.zipBest12.5×92%8% of original Yes — millisecond pullsYes — verified on every restore

“gene.zip is X% smaller” compares the compressed output sizes: e.g. vs gzip, gene.zip's 8% footprint is 73% smaller than gzip's 30%. Figures are representative for sequencing data (FASTQ / BAM) and vary by dataset, depth and quality model — specialist genomic tools beat gzip by a wide margin, and gene.zip beats them while keeping data instantly queryable. We confirm your actual numbers with a free pilot that compresses a sample of your own archive and verifies a byte-exact restore before you commit.

Start a free pilot on your data →