tar.xz vs tar.zst
A side-by-side feature comparison.
Summary
tar.xz has been the king of small Unix tarballs for over a decade. Zstandard challenges it with comparable ratios at a fraction of the CPU time, especially during decompression.
Bottom line: tar.zst when you control both ends. tar.xz when you need maximum compression and the audience is well-equipped.
Feature comparison
| Feature | TAR.XZ | TAR.ZST |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithm | LZMA2 | Zstandard |
| Compression speed | Slow | Fast |
| Decompression speed | Fast | Very fast |
| Ratio at default level | Baseline | 5-10% larger |
| Ratio at max level | Smallest | Catches up at -19+ |
| Adoption | Default in many distros | Default in Arch and Linux kernel |
| Tooling availability | Universal | Modern systems only |
About TAR.XZ
A tar.xz archive bundles files with TAR and compresses with XZ (LZMA2). It produces the smallest tarballs of the mainstream formats and is now the default for kernel.org, the Linux kernel, and many distribution package payloads.
About TAR.ZST
A tar.zst file is a TAR archive compressed with Zstandard. It hits a sweet spot of fast compression and decompression with ratios competitive with xz at moderate levels. Arch Linux switched its package format to .pkg.tar.zst in 2019 specifically because installs became dramatically faster.
More comparisons
- ZIP vs RAR
- ZIP vs 7z
- RAR vs 7z
- tar.gz vs tar.xz
- gzip vs Zstandard
- 7-Zip vs WinRAR
- 7-Zip vs PeaZip
- Keka vs The Unarchiver
- ZIP vs tar.gz
- XZ vs Zstandard
- LZ4 vs Snappy
- bzip2 vs bzip3
- ISO vs IMG
- Parquet vs ORC
- VMDK vs qcow2
- APK vs AAB (Android App Bundle)
- CAB vs MSI
- DEB vs RPM
- DMG vs macOS PKG
- Flatpak vs Snap
- AppImage vs Flatpak
- 7z vs ZPAQ
- Borg vs restic
- EPUB vs MOBI