From a performance standpoint only, xcopy or robocopy will give you similar results. I ran through a couple of tests on a Vista 64bit sp2 box to do some comparisons. All copies were performed between a internal 7200 RPM Sata II disk and an external USB 2.0 drive or on the same internal drive itself where indicated. No special setup was done (make up your own mind if that invalidates/validates the test), only to input the command into a batch file to execute. Powershell was used to capture the start and stop times. After a couple of passes here are the averages from the tools I played with:
File: 732,909,568bytes (698MB) 1 ISO file copied to different dir on same internal disk
copy 6secs (ex. copy G:\folder1\* G:\folder2\)
xcopy 6secs (ex. xcopy G:\folder1 G:\folder2 /I /E /Y /R)
robocopy 6secs (ex. robocopy G:\folder1\ G:\folder2 /E /NP)
teracopy 28secs (ex. TeraCopy.exe Copy G:\folder1\ G:\folder2\)
fastcopy 19secs (ex. fastcopy.exe /auto_close G:\folder1 /to=G:\folder2)
File: 732,909,568bytes (698MB) 1 ISO file copied to external usb disk
copy 36secs (ex. copy G:\folder1\* I:\folder2\)
xcopy 35secs (ex. xcopy G:\folder1 I:\folder2 /I /E /Y /R)
robocopy 36secs (ex. robocopy G:\folder1\ I:\folder2 /E /NP)
teracopy 36secs (ex. TeraCopy.exe Copy G:\folder1\ I:\folder2\)
fastcopy 38secs (ex. fastcopy.exe /auto_close G:\folder1 /to=I:\folder2)
Files: 45,039,616bytes (42.9MB) 5 random files copied to external usb disk
copy 6secs (ex. copy G:\folder1\* I:\folder2\)
xcopy 5secs (ex. xcopy G:\folder1 I:\folder2 /I /E /Y /R)
robocopy 6secs (ex. robocopy G:\folder1\ I:\folder2 /E /NP)
teracopy 12secs (ex. TeraCopy.exe Copy G:\folder1\ I:\folder2\)
fastcopy 6secs (ex. fastcopy.exe /auto_close G:\folder1 /to=I:\folder2)
Files/Dirs: 1,087,180,800bytes (1.01GB) 27 Files/8 Dirs copied to external usb disk
copy *Not included in test
xcopy 57secs (ex. xcopy G:\folder1 I:\folder2 /I /E /Y /R)
robocopy 58secs (ex. robocopy G:\folder1\ I:\folder2 /E /NP)
teracopy 56secs (ex. TeraCopy.exe Copy G:\folder1\ I:\folder2\)
fastcopy 60secs (ex. fastcopy.exe /auto_close G:\folder1 /to=I:\folder2)
This is by no means an exhaustive test, but just throwing a quick real world scenario at some of the more popular tools in this genre shows that your pretty safe sticking with either xcopy or robocopy (from a performance standpoint only). Also the robocopy option /NP No Progress saves you 0 time. That doesn't mean you cannot benefit from using something other than xcopy however. RoboCopy is a great example (from Wikipedia):
Robocopy is notable for capabilities above and beyond the built-in Windows copy and
xcopy commands, including the following:
- Ability to tolerate network outages
and resume copying where it
previously left off (incomplete files
are noted with a date stamp
corresponding to 1980-01-01 and
contain a recovery record so Robocopy
knows from where to continue).
- Ability to correctly copy attributes,
owner information, alternate data
streams, auditing information, and
timestamps by default, without the
need for numerous often forgotten
command line switches.
- Ability to correctly copy NTFS ACLs,
(when /COPYALL provided), and to
assert the Windows NT "backup right"
(/B) so an administrator may copy an
entire directory, including files
denied readability to the
administrator.
- Persistence by default, with a
programmable number of automatic
retries if a file cannot be opened.
- A "mirror" mode, which keeps trees in
sync by optionally deleting files out
of the destination that are no longer
present in the source.
- Ability to copy large numbers of
files that would otherwise crash the
built-in XCOPY utility.
- A progress indicator on the command
line that updates continuously.
- Ability to copy long file and folder
names exceeding 256 characters — up
to a theoretical 32,000 characters —
without errors.
