My understanding is that Oodle generally performs better (less CPU on both ends for any desired compression ratio) than ZStd in pretty much every context,
http://www.radgametools.com/oodle.htm
... assuming you control both compression and decompression and are willing to spend money for it.
(Besides, regardless of the state of benchmarks today, the momentum is clearly with Zstandard, with Facebook, Intel, and the open source community behind it. The basic lossless compression algorithms haven't changed much since the late 1970s. Making compression fast is mostly just a long slog of engineering hurdles, the kind that big companies are very good at doing.)
Oodle and zstd are both very impressive, it's a shame the former is not free.
This argument by hand-wave doesn’t match up with demonstrated progress over the past few years.
Irrespective of the skill or insight of its individual engineers, I would be surprised if a schizophrenic hack-it-with-duct-tape kind of engineering culture like Facebook could keep up with a focused and motivated expert like cbloom over the medium term (though I suppose the latter could conceivably at some point lose interest in the domain and switch to building something else).
Zstandard is likewise deservedly on track to dominate the lossless compression space.
Some folks disagree:
> [Ruby's] memory usage only reduces when using jemalloc 3; memory usage is still high when using jemalloc 5. Nobody knows why, so that makes the choice of defaulting to jemalloc very dodgy.
via https://www.joyfulbikeshedding.com/blog/2019-03-29-the-statu...