{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02074235807860262, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.644927536231884, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
White Paper Performing Equivalent Timing Analysis Between Altera TimeQuest and Xilinx Trace

Altera’s Quartus® II TimeQuest timing analyzer generally calculates all possible register-to-register and complex clock structures using the most conservative assumptions by default. In contrast, Xilinx’s Trace timing analyzer does not analyze many of these complex structures as extensively, so comparing the software tools on this basis unfairly penalizes Quartus II performance. TimeQuest makes the most stringent assumptions, allowing users to see possible problems by default. This can cause users comparing the two tools to perceive, initially, that Quartus II performance is inferior, which is not the case in actual practice. For instance, if designers determine that the reported problems are not significant, they can adjust TimeQuest not to report these problems, changing the reported performance of the design.