How does FeynGame's real-time Standard Model enforcement compare to QGRAF's automated diagram generation?

The archive materials don't directly compare FeynGame's Standard Model enforcement with QGRAF's diagram generation as two competing approaches—instead, they show these as complementary tools.

FeynGame's role: FeynGame functions as an *interactive validator and visualizer*. It enforces Standard Model rules in real time, checking that particle interactions respect conservation laws and allowed vertices [AG-2024.01-1123]. This makes it pedagogically powerful: users draw diagrams by hand and receive immediate feedback about which vertices violate the Standard Model [AG-2025.10-1423]. The newer FeynGame 3.0 added the ability to *import* diagrams generated by QGRAF [AG-2025.01-1133], meaning it's designed to work *downstream* of automated generation.

QGRAF's role: QGRAF is an automated diagram *generator*—it produces all topologically valid Feynman graphs for a given process computationally, without requiring manual drawing. FeynGame can then consume QGRAF's output files to visualize and edit those diagrams [AG-2025.01-1133].

The practical division of labor: QGRAF excels at exhaustively enumerating diagrams for complex processes; FeynGame excels at making the structure of those diagrams transparent and editable. They're not really competitors—QGRAF automates what would be tedious enumeration, while FeynGame enforces correctness interactively for learning or publication-quality work.

The preprints don't contain detailed performance benchmarks or a head-to-head methodological comparison between the two systems.