How about pure zstd (or tar.zstd) vs pack vs patched 7z+zstd benchmark? Measure container overhead, in both speed and bytes
If that is not enough, let me know.
7-Zip with the ZSTD patch is good too, but Pack is much faster at handling many files.
Testing packing the Linux code base (81K files and 1.25 GB) on Windows with NTFS:
7-Zip + Patched with ZSTD (-m0=Zstd): 6.453 s, 194.9 MB (Creating the header takes too much time)
Pack: 1.3 s, 194.5 MB
1) regular archive formats vs pack
2) various containers with the same zstd inside.
Exposure comes from enthusiasts like you.
I did not want to focus the point on speed, or say, "Look, others are bad". They are great; my point was, "Look what we can do if we update our design and code". Pack value comes from user experience, and speed is being one. I was not following the best speed or compression; I wanted an instantaneous feeling for most files. I wanted a better API, an easier CLI, improved OS integration (soon), and more safety and reliability. Tech people (including me) care so much about speed
I am happy about the results, but Pack offers much more that I like others to see.