HEVC/AV1 Video Codecs Comparison 2019
Fourteen Annual Video-Codecs Comparison by MSU
| Video group head: | Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin |
| Project head: | Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov |
| Measurements, analysis: |
Dr. Mikhail Erofeev,
Anastasia Antsiferova, Sergey Zvezdakov, Denis Kondranin, Egor Sklyarov, Stanislav Grokholskiy |
100 videos were used for comparison! (report part I, FullHD)
If you want to receive notifications about our reports, please
Navigation
- Participated codecs
- Reports
- Main report (Objective comparison, FullHD videos)
- Subjective report
- 4K report (New!)
- High-Quality comparison report (New!)
- General results
- Videos selection
- Rules
- Codec analysis and tuning for codec developers and codec users
- Thanks
- Leave a feedback
- Contact information
Participated codecs
| Codec name | Report parts | Standard | ||||
| Part I. FullHD | Part II. Subjective | Part III. 4K | Part IV. High Quality | |||
| 1 |
aom
AOMedia |
 |
|
|
|
AV1 |
| 2 |
arowana xvc
Divideon |
Ripping use case |
|
|
|
xvc |
| 3 |
Bytedance V265 Encoder
ByteDance Inc. |
Fast, Universal use cases |
|
|
|
HEVC |
| 4 |
HW265
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. |
|
|
|
|
HEVC |
| 5 |
MainConcept HEVC
MainConcept GmbH |
|
|
|
|
HEVC |
| 6 |
rav1e
rav1e |
|
|
|
|
AV1 |
| 7 |
SIF Encoder
SIF Encoder Team |
Ripping use case |
|
Universal use case |
|
SIF |
| 8 |
SVT-AV1
Open Visual Cloud |
|
|
Universal use case |
|
AV1 |
| 9 |
SVT-HEVC
Open Visual Cloud |
|
|
|
|
HEVC |
| 10 |
SVT-VP9
Open Visual Cloud |
|
|
|
|
VP9 |
| 11 |
sz265
Nanjing Yunyan |
|
|
|
|
HEVC |
| 12 |
Tencent V265 Encoder
Tencent |
|
|
|
|
HEVC |
| 13 |
UC265
Ucodec Inc. |
Ripping use case |
|
|
|
HEVC |
| 14 |
VP9
The WebM Project (Google) |
Ripping use case |
|
|
|
VP9 |
| 15 |
WZAurora AV1 Encoder
Visionular |
Ripping use case |
|
Universal use case |
|
AV1 |
| 16 |
x264
x264 Developer Team |
|
|
|
|
AVC |
| 17 |
x265
MulticoreWare, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
HEVC |
| 18 |
xin265
|
|
|
|
|
HEVC |
Reports
|
Main report (Objective comparison, FullHD videos) Three encoding use cases measured on 100 FullHD videos Released on October, 21 |
Free version | Enterprise version | |
| Use cases | Universal (partially) | Fast, Universal, Ripping | |
| Per-sequence-results | 2 of 100 sequences (only Universal use case) | All 100 sequences for all use cases (in interactive charts) | |
| Metric: YUV-SSIM |
|
|
|
| Description of video sequences |
|
|
|
| Codec info (developer, version number, website link) |
|
|
|
| Other objective metrics (in addition to YUV-SSIM) |
|
Y-VMAF(0.6.1), Y-VMAF(0.6.2), Y-VMAF(0.6.3), Y-VMAF(0.6.1, Phone), Y-VMAF(0.6.2, Phone), Y-VMAF(0.6.3, Phone), Y-SSIM, U-SSIM, V-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, U-PSNR, V-PSNR |
|
| Per-frame metrics results (in HTML version of the report) |
|
All metrics for all sequences and use cases (10000+ charts) |
|
| Relative quality analysis | |
|
|
| Download links for video sequences | |
|
|
| Encoders presets description | |
|
|
| PDF report | 58 pages | 83 pages | |
| HTML report | 28 interactive charts | 14000+ interactive charts | |
| Price | Free | $950 | |
Descriptions of 100 used videos can be found on this page or in separate PDF (41 MB) |
You will receive enterprise versions of all reports (FullHD, Subjective, 4K and High Quality) |
|
Subjective Report Subjective comparison conducted on Subjectify.us platform Released on November, 1 |
11 codecs Bytedance, sz265, Tencent V265 Encoder, UC265, x265, xin265, arowana xvc, SIF Encoder, VP9, WZAurora AV1 Encoder, x264 |
Free version
Enterprise version
You will receive enterprise versions of all reports (FullHD, Subjective, 4K and High Quality) Contact us if you want to buy only Enterprise Subjective Report |
| 732 unique observers 25784 valid answers |
||
|
5 video sequences Short fragments from Crowd Run, Kayak Trip, Making Alcohol, Tractor, Wedding Party |
||
|
Special Subjective Encoding Use Case At least 1 FPS |
||
|
6 metrics Subjective score and 5 objective: YUV-SSIM, Y-SSIM, YUV-PSNR, Y-PSNR, Y-VMAF(v.0.6.1) |
||
|
HTML and PDF documents 118 interactive charts and 33 pages |
|
4K Report Comparison conducted on 4K (UHD) videos Released on March, 6 |
12 codecs Bytedance V265 Encoder, HW265, MainConcept HEVC, SVT-HEVC, sz265, x265, SIF Encoder, SVT-AV1, SVT-VP9, VP9, WZAurora AV1 Encoder, x264 |
Free version
PDF report 
HTML report 
Download all in one archive (zip) Enterprise version
You will receive enterprise versions of all reports (FullHD, Subjective, 4K and High Quality) Contact us if you want to buy only Enterprise 4K Report |
|
11 4K video sequences From 24 to 60 FPS |
||
|
Two Encoding Use Cases 4K Universal (1fps) and 4K Fast (20fps) |
||
|
9 metrics YUV_SSIM, YUV_PSNR, Y_VMAF (v0.6.2), Y_SSIM, U_SSIM, V_SSIM, Y_PSNR, U_PSNR, V_PSNR |
||
|
HTML and PDF documents 710 interactive charts and 71 pages |
|
Report on high quality encoding Comparison conducted under slow-speed requireents Released on March, 30 |
7 codecs aom, rav1e, SVT-AV1, SVT-HEVC, SVT-VP9, x264, x265 |
Enterprise version (for free) PDF report
HTML report
Download all files in one archive (zip) PDF, HTML report + download links for videos + HTML report with per-frame metrics results |
|
6 FullHD video sequences From 24 to 60 FPS |
||
|
Special Encoding Use Case Formal limitation 0.005 fps (not strict) |
||
|
9 metrics YUV_SSIM, YUV_PSNR, Y_VMAF (v0.6.2), Y_SSIM, U_SSIM, V_SSIM, Y_PSNR, U_PSNR, V_PSNR |
||
|
HTML and PDF documents 594 interactive charts and 42 pages |
Ovarall Conclusions
Main report (Objective comparison, FullHD videos) summary
According to just quality scores (YUV-SSIM), the best codecs among our competitors evaluated for all three use cases are the following:
- First place: HW265
- Second place: Tencent V265 Encoder
- Third place: sz265
The biggest number of codecs took part in comparison with high-quality encoding presets (Ripping use case). The winners for only high-quality encoding are the following:
- First place in high-quality (ripping) use case: HW265
- Second place in high-quality (ripping) use case: Tencent V265 Encoder
- Third place in high-quality (ripping) use case: VP9
We tested three encoded use cases (see the description in section Test Hardware Characteristics). Here is one of the rate-distortions charts for universal encoding (Cion video sequence):
The universal-encoding use case has two Pareto optimal encoders in terms of mean speed and quality: HW265 and Tencent V265 Encoder. Nevertheless, the differences emerge for particular sequences and use cases.
Free version contains the results for 2 of 100 video sequences, while full results are available in enterprise version.
Subjective report summary
According to subjective quality scores, the best codecs among our competitors evaluated for all three use cases are the following:
- First place: WZAurora AV1 Encoder
- Second place: Tencent V265 Encoder
- Third place: arowana xvc
4K report summary
According to SSIM quality scores, the best codecs among our competitors evaluated for two use cases are the following:
- First place: HW265 by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
- Second place: Bytedance V265 Encoder
- Third place: Mainconcept HEVC
Mean overall quality (SSIM):
Overall quality for universal use case (1fps, SSIM):
In this comparison, the results for universal 4K encoding (1fps) differ from overall scores. The following encoders showed the best performance results:
- First place: WZAurora AV1 Encoder
- Second place: HW265 by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
- Third place: Mainconcept HEVC
The above plots show only quality gain, hovewer, all encoders slightly differ in encoding speed. The following speed-quality chart shows the picture for Duck Take Off video sequence.
All graphs, including speed-quality trade-off for all videos, are available in enterprise version (which is free for all buyers of enterprise main and subjective reports).
High quality encoding report summary
According to YUV-SSIM, YUV-PSNR and Y-VMAF quality scores, the best codecs among our competitors evaluated for two use cases are the following:
- First place: aom
- Second place: SVT-AV1
- Third place: x265
Mean overall quality (SSIM):
As we analysed the case of offline encoding, the limit on encoding speed was not strict in this part of the comparison. The following speed-quality chart shows the landscape of competitors relative speed and quality for all video sequences.
The following plot shows per-frame VMAF scores for axebat video sequence at 2 Mbps. SVT-AV1, SVT-HEVC and SVT-VP9 show quality decrease in a part of the video with high motion and complex scenes (running baseball players, splashing water). Enterprise report includes an HTML report with per-frame metrics results for all videos and bit rates.
Comparison Rules
HEVC codec testing objectives
The main goal of this report is the presentation of a comparative evaluation of the quality of new HEVC codecs and codecs of other standards using objective measures of assessment. The comparison was done using settings provided by the developers of each codec. Nevertheless, we required all presets to satisfy minimum speed requirement on the particular use case. The main task of the comparison is to analyze different encoders for the task of transcoding video – e.g., compressing video for personal use.
Test Hardware Characteristics
- CPU: Intel Socket 1151 Core i7 8700K (Coffee Lake) (3.7Ghz, 6C12T, TDP 95W)
- Mainboard: ASRock Z370M Pro4
- RAM: Crucial CT16G4DFD824A 2x16GB (totally 32 GB) DIMM DDR4 2400MHz CL15
- OS: Windows 10 x64
For this platform we considered three key use cases with different speed requirements:
- Fast/High Density – 1080@60fps
- Universal/Broadcast VQ – 1080p@25fps
- Ripping/Pristine VQ – 1080p@1fps and SSIM-RD curve better than x264-veryslow
See more on Call-for-codecs 2019 page
Videos
Videos for testing set were chosen from MSU video collection via a voting among comparison participants, organizers and an independend expert. In this year, the collection was enlarged up to 18418 sequences which were chosen from 700000+ user-generated videos posted on Vimeo website. All videos have 4K or FullHD resolution and high bitrate (50 Mbps was selected as a lower bitrate boundary).
| Year | # FullHD videos | # FullHD samples | # 4K videos | # 4K samples | Total # of videos | Total # of samples |
| 2016 | 3 | 7 | 882 | 2902 | 885 | 2909 |
| 2017 | 1996 | 4638 | 1544 | 4561 | 3540 | 9299 |
| 2018 | 4342 | 10330 | 1946 | 5503 | 6288 | 15833 |
| 2019 | 4945 | 12402 | 2091 | 6016 | 7036 | 18418 |
Final video set consists of 100 sequences: 8 from the old data set and 92 new ones from Vimeo and media.xiph.org derf's collection. The average bitrate for all sequences in the final set is 218.9 Mbps, median - 143.2 Mbps. City walk (61.5 Mbps), Nancy (67.6 Mbps) and Oman museum (69.7 Mbps) sequences have minimal bitrates.
Descriptions of all test videos are presented on this page and in a separate PDF provided with our reports.
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:
- 15+ years working in the area of video codec analysis and tuning using objective quality metrics and subjective comparisons.
- 27+ reports of video codec comparisons and analysis (H.265, H.264, AV1, VP9, MPEG-4, MPEG-2, decoders' error recovery).
- Methods and algorithms for codec comparison and analysis development, separate codec's features and codec's options analysis.
Strong and Weak Points of Your Codec
- Deep encoder parts analysis (ME, RC on GOP, mode decision, etc).
- Weak and strong points for your encoder and complete information about encoding quality on different content types.
- Encoding Quality improvement by the pre and post filtering (including technologies licensing).
Independent Codec Estimation Comparing to Other Codecs for Different Use-cases
- Comparative analysis of your encoder and other encoders.
- We have direct contact with many codec developers.
- You will know place of your encoder between other newest well-known encoders (compare encoding quality, speed, bitrate handling, etc.).
Encoder Features Implementation Optimality Analysis
We perform encoder features effectiveness (speed/quality trade-off) analysis that could lead up to 30% increase in the speed/quality characteristics of your codec. We can help you to tune your codec and find best encoding parameters.Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share with us your opinion about comparison
Contact Information
 |
compression.ru |
in cooperation with |
|
Lomonosov MSU
Graphics & Media Lab (Video Group) |
|
Dubna State University | ||
|
Institute for Information Transmission Problems RAS |
Subscribe to report updates
Materials about MSU Codec Comparison
See all MSU Video Codecs Comparisons
MSU video codecs comparisons resources:
- Introduction to Video Codecs Comparison
- Lossless Video Codecs Comparison 2004 (October 2004)
- MPEG-4 SP/ASP Video Codecs Comparison (March 2005)
- JPEG 2000 Image Codecs Comparison (September 2005)
- First Annual MPEG-4 AVC/ H.264 Video Codecs Comparison (January 2005)
- Second Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codec Comparison (December 2005)
- Subjective Comparison of Modern Video Codecs (February 2006)
- MPEG-2 Video Decoders Comparison (May 2006)
- WMP and JPEG2000 Comparison (October 2006)
- Third Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (December 2006) (All versions for free!)
- Lossless Video Codecs Comparison 2007 (March 2007)
- Fourth Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (December 2007) (All versions for free!)
- Options Analysis of MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Codec x264 (December 2008)
- Fifth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2009) (All versions for free!)
- Sixth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2010)
- Seventh MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2011)
- Eighth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2012)
- Ninth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (Dec 2013)
- Tenth Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Oct 2015)
- Eleventh Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2016)
- Twelfth Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2017)
- Thirteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2018)
- Fourteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Sept 2019)
- Cloud Encoding Servoces Comparison 2019 (Dec 2019)
- Fifteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Dec 2020)
- Sixteen Video Codec Comparison (Dec 2021)
- Seventeen Video Codecs Comparisons (Nov 2022)
- Eighteen Video Codecs Comparisons
- Codec Analysis for Companies:
Other Materials
Video resources:
Server size: 8069 files, 1215Mb (Server statistics)
Project updated by
Server Team and
MSU Video Group
Project sponsored by YUVsoft Corp.
Project supported by MSU Graphics & Media Lab