With all due respect, xxHash is a decent hash function but you are comparing it against some relatively weak or slow hash functions. As was pointed out last time this came up, the Metro64 hash example I offered is simultaneously faster and higher quality than xxHash. There are hash functions that are faster than xxHash <i>and</i> stronger than some of the cryptographic hashes, and xxHash definitely has much more bias than even MD5.<p>Getting a perfect score with SMHasher is table stakes. The default settings on SMHasher are much too loose for current research; I know it well, I have hacked it extensively. A state-of-the-art non-cryptographic hash function today generally has the following properties:<p>- statistical quality greater than or equal to MD5, a cryptographic hash. xxHash is not close to MD5 in quality.<p>- faster than xxHash on large keys, and for really good hashes, memory bandwidth bound. (Metro64 is, again, faster than xxHash, though not memory bandwidth bound.)<p>- faster than xxHash on small keys (Metro64, to use that example, is almost 2x faster)<p>There are a lot of good hash functions being developed by researchers. But empirically, xxHash is nowhere near the state-of-the-art any way you slice it. It is a decent hash function but there are many functions produced by many researchers that are both faster and higher quality. It isn&#x27;t personal, people can measure it for themselves.