Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Availability of the author to advice and bring new features
I won't talk about my personal experience here by respect for the authors!
Speed / RAM usage
I think SimBit is typically much faster (and use less RAM) than Nemo. SFS_code and SLim are very fast for simulations with low genetic diversity but very slow for simulations with high genetic diversity.
Flexibility
Nemo, SLim and SimBit are very flexible (but they do different things) but SFS_code is not really.
User interface
I find Nemo error report pretty poor. I like SimBit error report. SLim interface is very nice (using eidos) and it even comes with a GUI (I have never used the GUI myself).
Free of Bugs
Several people have found important bugs in SFS_code (personal communication and experience).
SimBit is typically much faster than Nemo, at least for large genomes. This difference becomes particularly obvious for large genomes. One might think "Oh I am fine to wait a few extra days to get my results" but the difference in speed between two softwares can also be a difference in whether you have to wait a week or 20 years to get your results, so do not neglect the importance of running time and RAM usage without estimating your needs.
Availability of the author to advice and bring new features
I won't talk about my personal experience here by respect for the authors!
Speed / RAM usage
SimBit is typically much faster (and use less RAM) than Nemo. SFS_code and SLim are very fast for simulations with low genetic diversity but very slow for simulations with high genetic diversity.
Flexibility
Nemo, SLim and SimBit are very flexible but SFS_code is not really.
User interface
I find Nemo error report pretty poor. I like SimBit error report. SLim interface is very nice (using eidos) and it even comes with a GUI (I have never used the GUI myself).
Free of Bugs
Several people have found important bugs in SFS_code (personal communication and experience).
SimBit is typically much faster than Nemo. This difference becomes particularly obvious for large genomes. One might think "Oh I am fine to wait a few extra days to get my results" but the difference in speed between two softwares can also be a difference in whether you have to wait a week or 20 years to get your results, so do not neglect the importance of running time and RAM usage without estimating your needs.
Availability of the author to advice and bring new features
I won't talk about my personal experience here by respect for the authors!
Speed / RAM usage
I think SimBit is typically faster (and use less RAM) than Nemo. SFS_code and SLim are very fast for simulations with low genetic diversity but very slow for simulations with high genetic diversity.
Flexibility
Nemo, SLim and SimBit are very flexible (but they do different things) but SFS_code is not really.
User interface
I find Nemo error report pretty poor. I like SimBit error report. SLim interface is very nice (using eidos) and it even comes with a GUI (I have never used the GUI myself).
Free of Bugs
Several people have found important bugs in SFS_code (personal communication and experience).
SimBit is typically faster than Nemo, at least for large genomes. This difference becomes particularly obvious for large genomes. One might think "Oh I am fine to wait a few extra days to get my results" but the difference in speed between two softwares can also be a difference in whether you have to wait a week or 20 years to get your results, so do not neglect the importance of running time and RAM usage without estimating your needs.
