and message replication overhead. The bar graphs are an average of all buffer sizes, transmission speeds, and protocol data points for each scenario. Each bar graph uses a 95% confidence interval. Figure \[fig:SimAggMDR\] compares aggregate protocol and scenario between the and . Within Bold Alligator, delivers 61% fewer messages than the , and 24% fewer messages in Omaha. delivers 17% fewer messages in Helsinki. Across all scenarios and protocols, delivers 31% fewer messages than the .

Figure \[fig:SimAggLat\] compares aggregate average latency for protocols and scenarios between simulators. Epidemic’s average latency is 21% higher in than the . In relation to network overhead in Figure \[fig:SimAggOvd\], protocols with higher message replication overhead tend to return a smaller difference between simulators. Helsinki’s average latency in is 202% higher than the . Bold Alligator’s average latency is 160% higher in and Omaha’s average latency is 53% higher in . Across all scenarios and protocols, ’s average latency is 119% higher than the .

Unlike and average latency, message replication overhead in Figure \[fig:SimAggOvd\] displays different trends between military and urban scenarios. returns lower message replication overhead than the by 61%. However, ’s message replication overhead is 88% higher in Bold Alligator and 