Real comparison figures as a reference.
Concrete EOSX savings factors will only be published after direct measurements of identical reference systems. Existing studies nevertheless show the fundamental potential of systematic modularity and reuse.
31% → 71% reuse
A published modular embedded-software case study increased average software-module reuse from 31% to 71%.
+258% productivity
The same case study reported a 258% productivity increase after introducing the modular approach.
−70% development cost
The study also reported a 70% reduction in development costs and a 72% increase in quality. These are reference values, not EOSX measurements.
>80% software reuse
An AT&T Bell Labs case study reported more than 80% reuse, 43,000 non-comment source lines per developer-year and a first major release after three months.
−38% duplicated code
A 2025 industrial software-product-line case study removed an average of 38% duplicated code through systematic refactoring and increased reuse by 33%.
−89% maintenance time
In the same 2025 case study, maintenance and update time for the second application fell by 89%.
Measuring code savings correctly
A fair EOSX comparison measures not only physical lines of code but also newly written code, reused capabilities, duplicated implementations, configuration and integration effort.
Direct EOSX comparison
For the same application, conventional implementation and EOSX composition are compared under identical requirements: development hours, implementation volume, reuse, change time, defects, maintenance effort, CPU, memory, latency and throughput.
Google Lighthouse Quality
Current technical quality status of EOSX based on the stored Google Lighthouse/PageSpeed measurement. Values are remeasured regularly and do not represent a claim about a worldwide ranking.