Performance Comparisons Sample Clauses
A Performance Comparisons clause establishes a framework for evaluating the performance of a party, product, or service against defined benchmarks or the performance of others. Typically, this clause outlines the criteria, metrics, and methods used to measure and compare performance, such as industry standards, competitor outputs, or agreed-upon targets. By providing a structured basis for assessment, the clause helps ensure transparency and fairness in performance evaluations, and can be used to trigger remedies or adjustments if performance falls short of expectations.
Performance Comparisons. Licensee shall not distribute externally or disclose to any Customer or to any third party any reports or statements that directly compare the speed, functionality or other performance results or characteristics of the Software with any similar third party products without the express prior written consent of ON Semiconductor in each instance; provided, however, that Licensee may disclose such reports or statements to Licensee’s consultants (i) that have a need to have access to such reports or statements for purposes of the license grant of this Agreement, and (ii) that have entered into a written confidentiality agreement with Licensee no less restrictive than that certain NDA.
Performance Comparisons. Licensee shall not distribute externally or to third parties, any reports or statements that directly compare the speed, functionality or other performance results of the Products with any similar third party products without the prior written approval of Artisan.
Performance Comparisons. Table 1 shows a comparative analysis of the computational cost among the related protocols. In addition, even though the proposed protocol has a bit of computational overhead than ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al.’s protocol,the proposed protocol assures higher security and privacy, and affords resistance to the most well-known attacks, while providing functionality.
Performance Comparisons. In Table 4, we compare the computational cost with related schemes. Th denotes the computation time for the hash function; Tx denotes the XOR operation; TF denotes the fuzzy extraction; TE denotes the ECC multiplication; Tenc denotes the encryption/decryption. The computation cost of ours is a bit higher than [13,14] because of the usage of biometrics and ECC, but it is considered to be operationally viable in WSNs [15,18]. Additionally, our proposed scheme provides the enhanced security functionalities and is secure against various attacks. Table 4. Comparisons of the computation costs. Scheme Registration Login & Authentication Total User 2Th + Tx 9Th + 9Tx 11Th + 10Tx ▇▇▇ et al.’s [13] GWN 6Th + 3Tx 8Th + 8Tx 14Th + 11Tx Sensor 0 2Th + 2Tx 2Th + 2Tx User 2Th + Tx 9Th + 5Tx 11Th + 6Tx ▇▇▇▇▇ et al.’s [14] GWN 5Th + 3Tx 10Th + 4Tx 15Th + 7Tx Sensor 0 4Th + Tx 4Th + Tx User Th 3Th + 2Tx + 2TE 4Th + 2Tx + 2TE ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇’▇ [15] GWN 2Th + 2Tx 4Th 6Th + 2Tx Sensor 0 3Th + 2TE 3Th + 2TE User Th + TF 10Th + 2Tx + TF + Tenc + 2TE 11Th + 2Tx + 2TF + Tenc + 2TE ▇▇▇▇ et al.’s [18] GWN 3Th + 3Tx 10Th + Tx + 2Tenc 13Th + 4Tx + 2Tenc Sensor 0 6Th + Tenc + 2TE 6Th + Tenc + 2TE User Th + TF 9Th + 4Tx + TF + 2TE 10Th + 4Tx + 2TF + 2TE Proposed GWN 5Th + 3Tx 11Th + 4Tx 16Th + 7Tx Sensor 0 4Th + Tx + 2TE 4Th + Tx + 2TE