Best Free Disk De-fragmenter

Other Language?
  Read this article in Spanish
In a Hurry?
  Go straight to the Quick Selection Guide

Fragmentation: why it happens

Suppose you are browsing the web, downloading your favorite songs and installing an application all at the same time, how does your system write all these files without any interruption to your activity? Well it's simple: it responds to all applications' write requests (I/O operations) by writing all files at a continuous location on your disk.

Representation of a disk track:

(Fig. 1)

Yellow: Temporary written internet files
Red: Installation (Game)
Blue: Song cache

The purpose of disk defragmenters is to reorganize such files which are supposed to be together. An ideal situation after defragmentation would look like this:

(Fig. 2)

But what happens when you uninstall, delete, or simply clean your temporary files? Imagine yourself uninstalling the application (game) you installed. The disk could look like this:

(Fig. 3)

The white zone is empty space without fragmentation. A disk looking like this will have just a little or even imperceptible impact on performance. In this case defragmentation is needed but not critical.

The last thing you want to see is a hybrid combination. Files very fragmented fig 1 and empty disk space fig3 but instead of contiguous clean sectors you'll find what we call fragmented empty space. And this is what it looks like:

(Fig. 4)

This is the worst case scenario. Overall system performance will be compromised and fragmentation is critical. You should defragment (defrag) or let your defragmenter schedule and execute the defrag process for you.

Standard mechanical HDDs (hard disk drives) will benefit from defragmentation and continuous disk use, because when spinning it keeps remagnetizing the HDD plates. But if you own an SSD (solid state drive) you SHOULD NOT defrag or install any defragmenter application because it will shorten the life of the drive.

So when testing defragmenter software we are going to evaluate it with some parameters:

  • Speed of analysis on fragmented files: Isn't it speed we want from our computer?
  • Speed of defrag
  • Some extras: such as scheduled defrag, shutdown PC when done, etc.
  • Defrag capabilities: why is this placed in last position? Because almost all of today’s defragmenters can perform this task with very similar results.

Well, it's time for action now and let me introduce you to the de-fragmenters.


UltraDefragUltraDefrag is simple yet has a lot of customizable options through text files and scripts via two mouse-clicks. Not only is the defragmentation super fast, but also you are not going to notice it's working! You can keep doing your things while UltraDefrag does what was born to do… defrag. It performs so well you are going to want to carry it in your wallet. A lot of varied boot defrag commands. If your goal is to optimize your system startup at maximum, this is what you need.


MyDefragMyDefrag, JK defrag with a GUI (Graphical User Interface). Bad? No, just awesome!

Unbelievable power user options for everyone without having to configure any script. Just select the option that best suits your needs and it's done. MyDefrag employs an algorithm that places the most used files at the beginning of the disk. This decreases access times because the actuator arm of the hard drive has no need to move to the end of a disk to search a file.

If you don't know what a HDD looks like, please see below:

The trick revealed and a little science.

When you turn off your computer (or Windows shut downs your HDD), the actuator arm has a designated "landing zone" (a specific sector at the beginning of the disk) that remains stationary until the next startup. This is to avoid disk scratch and therefore, data loss (data is read via magnetism, touching surfaces is not required). When turned back on, the closest sector to the actuator arm is already near the "landing zone" (beginning of the disk) so it's faster to read files on that sector than others in outer zones of the disk.

Also, the surface distance travelled is considerably less in the inner sectors of the disk. So, placing files at the beginning of the disk is the best idea.

MyDefrag is not the only defragmenter capable of doing this, as many others include an option. However, MyDefrag achieves this in a much simpler way. This is combined with a good “fast defrag”; the choice of specific options, many others by scripting, and excellent defragmentation methods and simple scheduler options.


This little boy, DiskTune, is not exactly a kid. Despite the use of Windows API to do defragmentation jobs, it's incredibly fast, simple and lightweight. Many useful options just a couple pixels of distance. Direct access to usual options such as Analyze, Defrag (quick), Optimize (rearrange) and Compact (defrag free space). The best thing about DiskTune? The ability to create a shortcut to your desktop and then double-clicking it to run a fully customized defrag. Four words—“one size fits all”.


Defraggler thumbnailPiriform's Defraggler—The first thing that caught my attention when first opening Defraggler was a green word, GOOD. I quickly realized it was telling me about S.M.A.R.T. Status (information provided by the disk itself, reporting temperature etc). This is a great feature and has its own tab on the program for detailed view.

In terms of defragmentation ability, Defraggler is one of the best choices you could make. It performs a very fast “quick defragmentation” with decent file reorganization but if you perform a complete defrag process, which takes longer, you obtain results that are worthwhile. Your files will be together as they should be as solid as a concrete wall. Defraggler also supports scheduling, low priority and boot defrag. Highly recommended.


MyDefragmenterMyDefragmenter, Ultradefrag with a very simple, intuitive GUI plus a full scheduler which has the ability to program defrag while shutting down or starting up computer. Includes a 24/7 support by phone call and online help.


Auslogics Disk Defrag thumbnailAuslogics Disk Defrag is another quality disk defragmentation program. During a fresh installation the installer asked if I wanted to install a Tool Bar and/or change my home page. These were easily de-selected before the installation process began. Auslogics Disk Defrag can be ran from a easy to understand GUI (Graphical User Interface) or you can use the command line tool for more advanced users. Auslogics also optimizes defragmented files and space by defragmenting free space and moving system files to the fastest part of the disk. The software is designed to defrag multi-terabyte volumes. If you choose you can defragment a particular folder or a single file by selecting the file out of a list of fragmented files. The program is set-up for automated defragmentation and will allow you to analyze your disks before you defragment. Auslogics also has a portable version available which can be run directly from your USB drive. Both versions are free and are allow for home or commercial use. The developers also have several articles regarding defragmenting your hard drive including How to defrag your drives the right way: 7 defrag tricks to learn today". This article includes topics such as temporary files and how to prevent the loss of your system restore points. The software only supports 64 bit on Windows 7/8 operating systems. The developers have updated this software twenty-four times in the last thirty four months, eleven of those were in 2012. Needless to say continued development of the product remains strong.  I have used this program on all of my computers for the last couple of years without any issues. Operating systems I have successfully operated on include XP 32bit; Windows 7 32 & 64bit.


Also reviewed but not included:

-Puran Defragmenter

-O&O defrag free edition



Feel free to suggest any software not already mentioned for review.

Quick Selection Guide

Gizmo's Freeware award as the best product in its class!

Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
System files defragmentation. Incredibly fast in all tasks. Power (scripting) features.
Some settings only accessible by configuration file (txt).
681.6 KB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Open source freeware
A portable version of this product is available from the developer.
This version will install on PCs running: Windows XP / 2003 / Vista / Windows7 / XP64 / Vista64 / Windows7 64
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
For average and power users
Not regularly updated
2.035 MB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Unrestricted freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Windows 2000, 2003, XP, Vista, 2008, Win7, and for X64.
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Very Fast. Can create shortcut to double click customized defrag.
Windows API. Needs to improve system resources usage
1.06 MB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Unrestricted freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
This version will install on PCs running: Windows XP / 2003 / Vista / Windows7 / XP64 / Vista64 / Windows7 64
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Very solid piece of software. Updated regularly. Now with S.M.A.R.T. monitoring.
No optimization feature yet.
3.6 MB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Unrestricted freeware
A portable version of this product is available from the developer.
This version will install on PCs running: Windows XP / 2003 / Vista / 7 / 8 /
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Well recognized Ultradefrag engine. Excellent scheduler.
Not regularly updated.
1.8 MB
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Feature limited freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Windows 7, Vista, Windows XP

Running on x64 computer requires download and replace DLLs available at Mydefragmenter website

Auslogics Disk Defrag
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Very fast at analyzing and performing a quick defragmentation.
Optimize function could be faster.
5 MB
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Unrestricted freeware
A portable version of this product is available from the developer.
Win 8 (32 or 64 bit), Win 7 (32 or 64 bit), Vista SP2 (32-bit only), XP SP3 (32-bit only)


This software review is copy-edited by Ian Richards. Please help edit and improve this article by clicking here.

defrag disk, defragment hard disk, disk defragmenter, free disk defrag software.

Back to the top of the article


Share this
Average: 4.1 (204 votes)
Your rating: None


by jamie123 (not verified) on 26. October 2011 - 18:42  (82171)

Love your site and recommendations. I was looking for a disk defrag program and saw the review for Disk Tune. I never heard of it before, but it is actually quite a robust and thorough program.
No extra bells and whistles, just gets the job done...Thanks for the tip on this great "unknown" defragger.

by 4goTTen21 on 26. October 2011 - 21:12  (82189)

:) Thanks

by actionjackson (not verified) on 17. October 2011 - 6:40  (81580)

Could you state the operating system you use for your evaluations? I have heard that those people using XP def need to use a 3rd party defrag program. But those using Windows 7 should not use a defrag program because the built in one is sufficient. I guess Vista kinda falls somewhere in the middle.
Also, do any of the programs you mention have a boot defrag? That's the only type of defrag I have noticed improves my Windows 7. So I just use the built in one for normal defrag and a different program for boot defrag.

by 4goTTen21 on 17. October 2011 - 17:13  (81604)

All the freewares have been tested on:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition x86
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x86
Microsoft Windows 8 Developer preview x86

Yes, they support boot defrag you can read it on review or quick selection.

To be hones, yes, built-in disk defragmenter of Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 are good enough. Here you can find alternatives with different capabilities.

by A.Nonnymush (not verified) on 2. October 2011 - 20:13  (80768)

Seems to be plenty of candidates for the new editor of this category. So many opinions on defraggers...why don't any of you put yourself forward, instead of whining about what was written by the previous editor?

by Gggirlgeek (not verified) on 11. October 2011 - 11:49  (81230)

Editor is indeed incorrect when saying the inside of the hard disk is the fastest. It is the outside of the hard disk, which is the "front" of the disk in most defrag programs, that is the fastest.

by 4goTTen21 on 11. October 2011 - 23:47  (81262)

You are right and wrong, but thanks for let me clear it up. Disk is a couple of concentric circumferences, so if the radius is smaller, the closer circumferences to center of disk, will be smaller too. For small files, the fastest place is the smallest circumference, so disk arm actuator has no need to move to an outer sector. With LARGER files its different 'cause placing such files in the outer sectors, maybe actuator arm only have to move one time to read that file. An amazing defragmenter, non existent at this time, should be that which places files with "X" size in "X" track on disk (previously calculated with advanced algorithm )trying to make actuator arm move as few times as it can, BUT, it would generate fragmented free space. Thanks.

by David Wall (not verified) on 9. September 2011 - 17:36  (79311)

I tried "Auslogics Defrag" but, after running it, I was quite disappointed and will be staying (for the moment) with the Windows XP generic system.

While some Windows apps can be a bit clunky, I would rather stay with the devil I know! Hey Ho ! ): Anyway, your site is brilliant. Keep up the good work.

[Commercial reference removed]

by DesElms on 7. August 2011 - 19:05  (77096)

Though I come to a different conclusion than does he, I generally agree with Warwick's overall: "It is a pity to see so much heat and so little light being generated!"

Let me see if I can make my 35 years of professional IT experience pay off a little, here...

I'm old enough to remember old DOS days (I go back way before that, but only DOS days are relevant to this discussion), and FAT (rather than NTFS), and the defragger in Norton Utilities, and DR-DOS, etc. There were several, actually, which all did a more or less magnificent job because, in the end, FAT32 defragging is childsplay compared to NTFS defragging; and defraggers, back then, were much more needed because FAT disk layout schemes defrag more, more easily, faster, and with far greater negative (in terms of slowing things down) consequences, than do NTFS schemes (though, don't get me wrong, NTFS defragments just fine, too, thankyouverymuch).

Finding a good -- and by that I mean a TRULY good -- NTFS defragger has always been a challenge because, unlike with FAT defragging, there are far more things to consider, approaches to the task, differences of opinion as to what matters and what doesn't, etc. The typical end-user who doesn't realize how vastly different can be the defragging choices will just go with what looks good, or is most polished, or which a lot of people talk about...

...all with little regard to whether the tool is actually DOING anything particularly useful. Consequently, there's a lot of wacky recommendations based on nothing but lore floating around out there; and the thing that's bad about that is that such lore is usually based, in largest measure, on the popularity of the tool, which, in turn, depends a lot on how well it's marketed, and often not how well it actually works. And, sadly, unlike during old DOS and FAT32 days when pretty much all defraggers were okay because there was pretty much only one way to defrag which actually made any difference, there are many NTFS defraggers out there which are largely ineffective... though sometimes very pretty to watch on the screen as they shuffle around their little squares.

I've always said that (especially) with NTFS defraggers, pretty much the only way to determine if one was better than another was good, old-fashioned, head-to-head testing in a controlled environment where in the exact same machine, with a freshly-restore image of exactly the same amount of defragmentation is used for each test so it would really be an apples-to-apples comparison.

In 2007, a fellow named Donn Edwards (who's a respected member of the SpamCop organization) did just that. And he did it well... so well that defragger makers emailed him and asked for more details; and for his suggestions for making their products better. Consequently, he repeated the tests in 2009 to see if anyone had improved anything.

I don't mean to suggest that we should all just accept his results prima facie, but I mention him and his tests because more than learning what are his specific product recommendations, I learned how the defragmentation process actually works, and how the best practices actually involve a multi-part task, if done correctly; and how the different tools out there each approach them differently; and how one approach for one part of the overall task does not necessarily apply well to other parts of it. It was all really quite eye-opening for me...

...and if everyone around here will allow me, I'd like to now share my triple-net, final, bottom line recommendations based on all of that; and also on my subsequent reading and learning and trying to figure out the best combinations of tools to by-golly get the best possible job done.

Speeding-up a machine with an NTFS-formatted drive requires more than one step (and tool). In short...

The first step is two-fold: First, there's getting all the junk files off of the drive... temp files and whatever else doesn't belong there; and, secondly, there's stripping out of the registry that sometimes thousands of no-longer-valid, orphaned, etc. entries in it. Many hail CCleaner as the tool of choice for this; and while CCleaner is, indeed, good, there are temp and other folders which it simply ignores (and which it shouldn't). That said, what CCleaner DOES do, it does well, so I still recommend it; but I always recommend using, after it, Comodo System Cleaner... which, agreed, can be dangers if misused. Of course, as with ComboFix for removing malware (and how dangerous it can be), the best tools of this sort are always analogous to gently using steel wool on Teflon.

The second step is to put the registry into one big contiguous block. Some think that that means "defragging" just the registry, such as the used-to-be-freeware Auslogics Registry Defragger does; but a little and obscure freeware tool named NTRegOpt does it far better because it simply builds a whole new copy of the registry in contiguous blocks and files in one big spot on the hard drive, then it creates an execute-on-reboot command to tell Windows to use the new and rebuilt registry, and not the old fragmented one, on reboot. Of course that still puts the registry on not necessarily the best (in terms of speed) part of the drive, but at least it's all defragged and in one big place, as it should be, as a next step in the process.

The third step is to do essentially the same thing to the PAGE file... where memory paging/swapping, etc. occurs. When that file gets its parts all scattered around the drive, things can REALLY slow down. The best tool for that, I've found, is Sysinternals's free little PAGE DEFRAG utility. It's unbelievably effective.

The fourth and final step, then, is the overall defrag... the part which is the subject of this Gizmo article. And figuring out the best tool out there for that is what Donn Edwards's testing was all about. From his work, I came to a simple, bottom line conclusion...

...and that's that [commercial product removed] is just about the best all-round (but, sadly, for our purposes, here, commercial) defragger on the planet; with [commercial product removed] very close behind. However, this place is all about freeware, so since, of the two of them, only Puran offers a freeware version of its defragger, that's my freeware recommendation.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there are other freeware tools which come close in some ways; but Puran's overall approach to defragging, even without considering its interesting little "intelligent optimizer" (PIOZR) technique/feature, uses pretty much the same overall best NTFS defragmenting practices as does [commercial product removed]. And so, even if PIOZR is turned off, Puran does just about the best overall defragmenting job of all the freeware possibilities out there.

However, when PIOZR is factored-in, Puran puts pretty much everything else (among the freeware competitors) out there to shame. Seriously.

PIOZR, basically, just puts all the most needed things out nearest the outer edges of the physical drive platters, where any disk drive's performance numbers are the best. Anyone who's ever filled a very large modern-day drive such that only about 15 percent of its overall space is available can attest that anything physically located more toward the center (spindle) area of the physical platters are accessed the most slowly. So, putting things which Windows accesses very, very frequently (such as the registry, the page file, enough space for certain temp files and cookies, pretty much the entire contents of the System32 folder, etc.) can REALLY speed things up.

When the overall defragger (Puran, in this case) is able to deal with both the registry and the page file each as one big contiguous unit, the defragging process is sped-up a little (and Puran can more easily figure out how much space to allocate for it out near the edges of the platter) than if they were all fragged all over the place... hence the reason for my steps two and three, above.

By implementing this little pseudo-suite of tools, in the way I have above described it, I have been able to not merely speed-up, but VASTLY speed-up, even the seemingly slowest machines (which haven't been defragged in a while); and in my own testing, steps one through three really make step four more effective.

One additional cool feature of Puran is that it can do boot-time mini-defrags... sort of ongoing "maintenence" defrags. However, there's a law of diminishing returns to that sort of thing. Eventually, because boot-up defragging doesn't include what steps one through three does, the whole thing really needs to be occasionally done manually. Still, though, until those diminishing returns maximize, boot-up defragging can really help... and the freeware version of Puran, unlike most other freeware defraggers, does that.

Anyway, that's what I've learned; it's how I do things on my own machine; and it's how I advise my clients...

...all of whom seem very happy.

Here, just FYI, is Donn Edwards's defragger info page...

Hope that helps!

[Moderator's note : Mentions of commercial software removed. Please keep it to freeware]

by Kokain (not verified) on 14. April 2012 - 13:01  (92083)

Such a shame! I'm reading this in 2012 and I was ecstatic to find what the recommended overall defrager is by DesElms. Now that the moderators have edited his recommendation "[commercial product removed]" with this message, I will never find out. I'm using Puran and so far liking it, but I want to test more even if they are shareware. Isn't the point of this research to find the best defraggers no matter if it's open source or paid?

by Melvin Moonshiner (not verified) on 31. August 2011 - 16:46  (78758)

If I'm not mistaken, Sysinternal's PageDefrag does both registry AND page file defragging. That would take care of steps 2 AND 3 in your criteria.

by Anonymous2356 (not verified) on 31. August 2011 - 1:29  (78698)

This is a nice review but it is about Puran Defrag which is taboo on this site, so it will probably be deleted. Apparently the mods feel this site was spammed by Puran loyalists so no Puran Defrag is ever listed as recommended.

On one hand, I can understand the mods' perspective, if in fact Puran spammed this site. It's odd that I have never came across any other freeware site that claimed Puran was a spammer. Usually if some product spams they spam everyone, not just some select site.

The second point is maybe Puran did spam this site selectively. But this site recommends freeware all the time that spams users. Then the response is usually "that's your fault". It's the way of most freeware these days to include toolbars, spyware, spammimg or involved in fraudulent behavior.

[edit] derogatory troll comments about our volunteer moderating staff removed.

Like most sites, we have a structured set of procedures for identifying spam manually in addition to the automated filters we have installed. Amongst these is the ability to identify posts in other places which (as in the case referred to by Kendall) contain identical text. This is spam no matter by whom or from where generated.

As requested by Kendall, please move this into the forum if you wish to debate the issue. Any further related comments appearing here (including these) will be deleted.

MC - Site Manager

by kendall.a on 31. August 2011 - 3:32  (78703)

[Moderator's Comment]
We have gone round and round and round and .... on the topic of Puran on this site. Trust me, we have well over 3 pages of discussion on this topic in our forums under the Editor's section (team member discussion area). You would not believe the amount of spam we got from people back in February 2010. No one is saying that it came from Puran directly. We are not accusing them.

This particular category is editor-less. No one has stepped up to take on the responsibility for maintaining this review and conduct on-going testing of deframenter programs. If this section gets a new editor, who seriously tests out all the programs/options out there, and wants to write a review that includes Puran Defrag because he/she thinks it is a good program, we'd probably allow that. (I can't speak for the entire leadership team here at Gizmo's.) At the very least, we'd consider the request. Until that time, we are going to be very suspect of comments promoting Puran Defrag, just based upon past history.

Please do not allow this to re-open the whole Puran Defrag discussion. We will not permit that here. If you have a strong desire to discuss this issue in detail, then I welcome you to come over to our forums and discuss it there. Further discussion here in the comments section will not be allowed.

Thank you.

by Remah on 7. August 2011 - 22:21  (77109)


Like you I was around with the DinOSaurs and that gives us a useful perspective on current issues. But I think that you're in danger of losing most of your audience with long comments.

My grown-up kids switch off if it sounds like I reminisce. They just want the facts. So I'm quite sure a lot of readers will get bogged down at the start of your comment and write-off the rest of what you say. That means they will miss out on the useful info you provide later in your piece.

KISS* was a really trendy principle by the time PC/MS DOS appeared and it remains a useful principle today. Even breaking your comment into shorter comments would help our readers. For example:
- how to defragment NTFS
- products that defragment NTFS well
- how I defragment and optimize my disk


* For those few who haven't met this acronym before, KISS has several meanings like Keep It Short & Sweet/Simple.

by George.J on 30. August 2011 - 8:12  (78626)

Dear God, that was the longest useful comment I have ever seen at Gizmo's. I felt it was useful though I actually didn't read it after a few lines. ;-)

by Radelen (not verified) on 9. October 2011 - 19:55  (81162)

I'm agree! :-)

by dikei (not verified) on 13. August 2011 - 12:14  (77601)

Or Keep It Simple Stupid ;)

by Anonymous99 (not verified) on 7. August 2011 - 21:34  (77103)

Yeah...but more detail wold be nice80]

by Warwick (not verified) on 3. August 2011 - 10:34  (76818)

It is a pity to see so much heat and so little light being generated!

It seems to me that a boot-time defragmenter can potentially defrag more completely than a runtime one. However the files that cannot be defragmented (Such as MBR) only become a problem if the number of fragments becomes significantly large so that speed is affected. Otherwise all but the purist fanatics are happy to allow a few files to have a few fragments. The ultimate aim, after all, is to speed the system up, not necessarily to eliminate all fragmentation.

Personally, I used MyDefrag until Auslogics Disk Defrag was recommended. I noted that not everything was defragmented, but the effectiveness and speed were enough to satisfy me.

I am very impressed with the good work of all of the people who help to keep Gizmo's site so useful. I find it amazing that such a wide variety of excellent software is not only available, but also sensibly reviewed. Thanks to all who contribute.

by btmk11 (not verified) on 30. July 2011 - 14:06  (76537)

There could be also a mention about defragging ssd/flash disks, as those are more and more popular.

And also a note about how Disk "de-fragmentation" differs from "disk optimization".

To all I recommend this good general information about defragging:

by azmarisela (not verified) on 27. July 2011 - 9:24  (76295)

Actually Auslogics defrag does have offline boot defrag as well as automatic defrag settings. They are in the options but kinda of tricky to locate at first. And I wanted to address the several questions about Auslogics compared to Mydefrag regarding the speed and quality. On the default settings, Mydefrag is doing a "better" job only because it is optimizing as well as defragging. However, Auslogics is actually able to do the same as well as lay out the files on the hard drive even more efficiently the Mydefrag. You just have to change the settings in the options as well as in the drive properties with the software. Keep in mind though, the time will increase a lot compared to it just on its default settings. It took me months to finally figure out Auslogics and how to use it properly because I always like the speed of it but then it lacked certain features i wanted, so I thought. I was wrong. The features have been there they are just somewhat hidden. But once you chage the setting I think that Auslogics is neck and neck with Mydefrag but just a bit faster. I still use both though.

by gonwk on 23. July 2011 - 15:18  (76108)

To the AUTHOR of this Article,

1st of all Thanks for taking the time and writing this up and doing the tests. However, I like to share something with you and other folks here ...

I use 4 different programs (see below) to run Disk Defrag on my laptop and I get Different Results with each one ... so I am confused and have some Questions ... would appreciate if an Expert can chime in and tell me why is this happening ...

Programs used: Defraggler; Aslogics; Smart Defrag; and Windows (Vista x64).

BTW, I have used JKDefrag before and I liked that also ...

Q1: Why do I get Different Results when using all of those above 4 programs?
What I mean is I run Auslogics, then I run Defraggler, and the other ones ... just for fun and it says my 320GB hard disk on my laptop Still is Fragmented ... so which Program do I Believe?

Q2: Is defragging the Fastest the Best Criteria? Or really Better defragging a better measuring tool?



by btmk11 (not verified) on 30. July 2011 - 14:51  (76539)

Because they all use different methods to defrag files and the disk. As you know it would take lots of time to fully defrag and order all files, so many of these programs leaves fragmented files for time saving, and the actual performance lost of this is minimal.

As i know MyDefrag uses it's own method too. "Other defragmenters do not know about wrap-around fragments, it is a concept unique to MyDefrag. Wrappped-around files will show up in other defragmenters as fragmented files."

As explained shortly you should really take a look what these programs tries to do to your hard disk and what's the performance/life time increase of it!

by Anonymousrfrees (not verified) on 20. July 2011 - 8:12  (75891)

Note that a portable version of Auslogics Disk Defrag is also available from their site

by Oliver Nuvver (not verified) on 14. July 2011 - 15:31  (75478)

If 'MyDefragGUI' gets 5 stars (or circles) and 'Auslogics' only manages a measly 4 and a half, why is 'Auslogics' top pick?

MyDefrag is better IMHO anyway....just wondered what the logic here was.

by checkplz on 19. May 2011 - 19:26  (72356)

FYI. Just came across this 1 :
Ainvo-Disk-Defrag (u can find it on

by woodshed on 25. May 2011 - 8:57  (72651)

Has anyone tried glaysoft defragger,I found it fast and efficent

by naf (not verified) on 8. May 2011 - 10:12  (71616)

Just recently checked the contig page in sysinternals, and found out that it has been recently updated(Feb 1, 2011). Can be found here:

by K (not verified) on 5. May 2011 - 0:27  (71435)

There is a portable version of Auslogics (downloadable from their own website), which should also be considered for "Best Free Portable Apps". It seems to leave an empty folder in AppData though, so it is not TruPortable...

by Ratzo on 19. May 2011 - 11:13  (72331)

Having just done a defrag first with Auslogics which showed 29% fragmented and reduced it down to 22% so I ran it again and got the same results. Next I used mydefrag which was a lot slower (took a couple of hours )but it completed defrag with no fragmentation left . And that was using the portable version

Gizmo's Freeware is Recruiting!

Gizmos Needs YouShare your knowledge of free software with millions of Gizmo's readers by joining our editing team.  Details here.