I just concluded the 24 hour test of ccminer klaust 8.19 and its effective hashrate came in at 3.68 MH/s vs. 4.06 MH/s reported, while hsrminer's effective hashrate was 3.30 MH/s vs. 4.32 MH/s reported. Since these results are so different and I only tested hsrminer for 4.5 hours I am going to give it yet another chance and do a full 24 hour test on the same pool once my existing balance fully clears. This way I can have more confidence that the average difficulty is truly average and eliminate as many variables as possible.
The results are in from my retest of hsminer over a full 24 hour period and its performance was even worse than before: it only earned 91.8 TZC instead of the 130.6 predicted based on its claimed hashrate of 4.3 MH/s and an average difficulty for 24 hours of 66, as reported by minethecoin.com. In other words, hsrminer earned 30% fewer coins because its effective hashrate was closer to 3 MH/s, instead of the 4.3 MH/s it was touting the entire time.
So not only is hsrminer not any faster than the KlausT fork of ccminer, it is actually significantly slower...
The rig used consists of (6) GTX 1060 3GB cards and the pool is the official one for Trezarcoin, pool.trezarcoin.com, and which finds a block every 4 minutes or less on average so a 24 hour test should keep error due to variation in luck below 1%. A 24 hour test also allows the use of the average difficulty reported by minethecoin.com which keeps error due to swings in difficulty to a minimum.
I am definitely curious to see if anyone else can corroborate or refute my results, especially with a different coin and/or pool, but please make sure to follow the same methodology I used so we are all comparing apples to apples here.
EDIT - I am not changing any of the above, but notifying any who come across this that I did another test of ccminer and hsrminer, except run concurrently mining to different addresses on the same pool, and this time hsrminer was 11% faster (though claiming to be 22% faster).