I had no heard of ECT, but I'm not impressed.
I've just benchmarked it against two others PNG optimizers, and here are the file sizes for default and max levels:
BTW, I could not compile ECT on my Linux system, because its CMake config was too old. I used the Windows release through Wine, but it shouldn't change the results above.
I tried to apply ECT to a few .gz files, but it complained it was not compatible, and I did not dig further.
Good to know that oxipng has surpassed ECT; there is a reason why i put "(still?)" in my original comment. How quick is it? (The main selling point of ECT was that it was way faster than OptiPNG etc. while results being smaller.)
I tried to apply ECT to a few .gz files, but it complained it was not compatible, and I did not dig further.
[edited for a typo s/I/it/]