MD5 & SHA Checksum Utility

MD5 & SHA Checksum Utility is a tool that allows you to generate CRC32, MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512 hashes of single or multiple files. You can also verify hashes with the matching file to ensure the file integrity is correct.

You may click on the Browse button to select a file/folder to generate hashes. Alternatively, you may also drag and drop or do a right-click on any file/folder to generate hashes. The generated hashes can be copied to clipboard or saved as CSV/HTML/TXT file.

File Panel
File Panel

Folder Panel
File Panel

Feature Free Pro
MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256 & SHA-512 tick tick
CRC32 & SHA-384 cross tick
Copy to Clipboard tick tick
Drag and Drop tick tick
Verify Hash tick tick
Hash Multiples Files from Folders and Subfolders cross tick
Export Report as CSV/HTML/TXT file cross tick
Windows Explorer Context Menu Integration cross tick
Price $0 $9.99
Get it from CNET! Purchase Now

Instruction to Generate hash

  1. Tick on the hashes that you want to generate
  2. Drag and drop a file into the program or use the Browse button to select a File
  3. Selected hashes will be generated
  4. Click on Copy All button if you want to copy all the selected hashes to clipboard (Useful for sharing hash with people)

Instruction to Verify hash

  1. Download a software that provides MD5, SHA-1 & SHA-256 hash
  2. Copy one of the hashes to clipboard (Ctrl + C)
  3. Drag and drop the downloaded file into the program or use the Browse button to select the downloaded file
  4. Selected hashes will be generated
  5. Click on the Paste button
  6. Click on the Verify button and the result will be displayed in a message box

You can try generate hash for this software and verify with one of the the checksum below.

Checksums for MD5 & SHA Checksum Utility 2.1 (Free)

MD5 Checksum: 2D423B85E6684956B817E6C7E36BE3DC
SHA-1 Checksum: 4B70B5213249014C3785460720B81B5F9BEABEC3
SHA-256 Checksum: D3D6F3597AEBA37312F61E59BA465E57B19140CC9A4517C7F9C49461F1D0A4BB
SHA-512 Checksum: 53914AFA0E66C50BBD12D9FFB7833FD5094FA10735D8700BFF9CD87C2A7EB478D6715B34EAE4F53652F0E48EC3526C51C431C08ACF4EC70E8DD5FCD5FA84C129

If you like this software, you may wish to donate via paypal.

You can email me or post a comment here for any feedback or suggestions.

Bookmark  and Share

170 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Abhishek  |  March 2, 2015 at 8:46 pm

    Hi i need the source code for this software if it is free ? can you sent me to my mail id

    • 2. Raymond  |  March 2, 2015 at 8:54 pm

      Hi Abhishek,

      My software is not open source.


  • 3. Gnospen  |  February 28, 2015 at 4:49 am

    Why show sha-512 for MD5 & SHA Checksum Utility 2.1 (Free)
    when you just print half of it?

    • 4. Raymond  |  February 28, 2015 at 2:12 pm

      Hi Gnospen,

      The textbox contains all the 128 characters of the SHA-512 hash. You should use the Copy SHA-512 button to copy all the SHA-512 hash.


  • 5. Dory  |  February 24, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    Does it factor in the name of the file when you extract the hash or only the file contents. How does that work? I would like to only extract the hash from the contents.

    • 6. Raymond  |  February 24, 2015 at 11:34 pm

      Hi Dory,

      It is based on file content. E.g. If you copy/rename “FileA.txt” to “CopyOfFileA.txt”, both will return the same hash.


  • 7. Enyo  |  February 20, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    Thanks for this nice tool!
    Thought about implementing BLAKE2 hash calculations?

    • 8. Raymond  |  February 22, 2015 at 11:03 pm

      Hi Enyo,

      Thanks for the feedback and suggestion. So far I did not receive any feedback on BLAKE2. I only receive suggestion on Keccak algorithm.


  • 9. Talal  |  February 20, 2015 at 3:45 am

    Very useful tool. I use it to check hashes of files for their originality.

    • 10. Raymond  |  February 22, 2015 at 11:00 pm

      Hi Talal,

      Thanks for the support :)


  • 11. Ed Gerston  |  February 1, 2015 at 5:57 am

    Hi Raymond! It’s Ed, the first poster to this blog (about 6 years ago now…).

    Just wanted to say thanks again for this great util – I finally bought the Pro upgrade. Well worth it for program alone, but especially with multiple file/folder options, export, etc.

    Flockin’ excellent software, Ray.


    • 12. Raymond  |  February 1, 2015 at 11:39 pm

      Hi Ed,

      It’s really nice to hear from you again after so many years.
      Thanks for your great support once again! :)


  • 13. Marcel  |  January 24, 2015 at 11:46 pm

    Idea? When a string is copied from a website and MD5+SHA checker is opened, then the string is autopasted.

    • 14. Raymond  |  January 25, 2015 at 7:48 pm

      Hi Marcel,

      Thanks for the suggestion. Will consider this in the next version.


  • 15. Marcel  |  January 9, 2015 at 10:49 pm

    Maybe add [Copy] button for folders (2nd tab) ?

    • 16. Raymond  |  January 10, 2015 at 1:33 am

      Hi Marcel,

      Thanks for the suggestion. As the Folder option might generate large number of results, therefore I would recommend to use the Save As button to export all the results into report in CSV/HTML/TXT format.


  • 17. Rob Murgatroyd  |  January 8, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    This is a great little utility and I really appreciate it.

    There’s one possible gotcha that I’ve encountered. When you click the ‘Copy xxx’ button an alert box appears saying ‘xxx checksum has been copied to the clipboard’. In fact the copy to clipboard does not happen until you close that box. If you are copying 2 or more checksums then if you paste the second one before closing the alert box it will actually paste the previous one. If you are in a hurry or inexperienced with the various checksums then you might not notice and send a checksum that would fail validation.

    A minor point but the utility is very good so I thought you’d want to know about this flaw.

    • 18. Raymond  |  January 8, 2015 at 7:44 pm

      Hi Rob,

      Thanks for the feedback. I have taken your valuable point and shall fix this on the next version.


  • 19. Alan Rew  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:22 am

    Worth noting that the SHA-512 checksum shown on your website for your program is incomplete. You only give the first 75 characters (which are correct) of the 128 characters of the full value. All other checksums do match :-)

    • 20. Raymond  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:45 am

      Hi Alan,

      Do you mean the screenshot?

      Anyway, the textbox for all the checksums are using the same length.
      As SHA-512 checksum is too long, the textbox will not be able to display all the characters. User can click on the “Copy SHA-512″ button to copy the full SHA-512 checksum to the clipboard and paste it to e.g. notepad.


  • 21. Charles Cleveland  |  December 28, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    Great Program!

    Please consider adding a Check for Updates button in the About panel, which would open an Update Panel displaying one of the following messages —

    “This is the latest version”, together with a Close button, or
    “Version X.X is available”, together with Download and Close buttons.

    A further improvement would be an option to automatically display the Update Panel when the program is launched whenever an update is available.

    • 22. Raymond  |  December 28, 2014 at 10:45 pm

      Hi Charles,

      Thanks for the feedback. Will consider this feature.


  • 23. Joe Flowers  |  December 17, 2014 at 12:09 am

    Can the CSV/HTML/TXT file be used to verify all of the hashes of the files automatically, so we don’t have to verify the hashes one at a time by copying and pasting each hash for each file?

    • 24. Raymond  |  December 17, 2014 at 12:34 am

      Hi Joe Flowers,

      Do you mean something like the scenario below:
      1) Generate a CSV/HTML/TXT report on a folder which consist of e.g. 5 files today.
      2) Repeat the above step e.g. 1 month later to compare the hash to ensure that the files integrity is correct i.e. not changed/corrupted.

      If that is the case, you can simply compare old and new reports hash to verify. Alternatively, you can run a text file comparison software like Notepad++ to do a line by line comparison on both reports and the differences will be highlighted.


      • 25. Joe Flowers  |  December 17, 2014 at 12:45 am

        Hi Raymond,

        So, it looks like what you are saying is for us to do something like a file compare on the two reports and make sure they are the same.

        That’s an interesting solution I had not thought of. Perhaps WinMerge would be a good way to go on that. However, it messes up somewhat if more files are added later or some files are deleted. And, it takes more time which I was hoping to save.

        It would make for a better product if we don’t have to do that. I’m on the fence now about buying the Pro version. If that feature was in it, it would be a much easier decision for me to make.

        I hope you continue to develop this product.



      • 26. Raymond  |  December 17, 2014 at 10:49 pm

        Hi Joe,

        It is a good suggestion of the feature.
        Will develop consider this in future release if I have time to develop.


  • 27. Pandu  |  December 15, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Great Software!
    Thanks Dude :)

    • 28. Raymond  |  December 15, 2014 at 10:04 pm

      Hi Pandu,

      Thanks for support.


  • 29. Ed  |  November 26, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    Just ran the utility on a 6.9 GB ISO and worked perfectly.
    Running Win7 Ultimate, 32GB RAM, Raid 0
    Thanks for the great utility.

    • 30. Raymond  |  November 26, 2014 at 11:45 pm

      Hi Ed,

      Thanks for the information and feedback.


  • 31. Donald Duck  |  November 26, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    Hi; I have been comparing hash/check sum values of (same) files before and after encryption (using M/S EFS)… Should the values change, or remain the same before and after encryption, pls? (The result I’m getting is that they remain the same…)
    Your prompt reply is greately appreciated for a study assignment due soon.
    Cheers; D.

    • 32. Raymond  |  November 26, 2014 at 11:44 pm

      Hi Donald Duck,

      I never use MS EFS before. Seems like you already tested and got the answer.
      You may need to read up more on MS EFS and also research on the differences between this MS EFS and standard encryption.


      • 33. Donald Duck  |  November 27, 2014 at 5:16 am

        Thanks… My question is more generic, relating to whether encryption –
        in general, changes hash-values, at all, or not..?
        I am using a built-in, standard Microsoft Encryption File System and, unless I am not testing it properly using your fine product here, returns the same values…
        As a lesson, I am hoping to learn, whether the SHA1/MD5 (etc.) values change with an encrypted file, or not, pls?
        Many Thanks; D. :-]

      • 34. Raymond  |  November 27, 2014 at 10:43 pm

        Hi Donald Duck,

        Generally, if you encrypt a file using tools like Axcrypt with a secret key, the content will be scrambled thus the hash value change.
        Once you decrypt the file with the same secret key, the hash will be restored back to original hash.

        However for MS EFS, if you simply just right click the file and marked as encrypt, the hash will still be the same as before.

        You can research more on the differences between MS EFS and standard file encryption.


  • 35. Sarah  |  November 25, 2014 at 5:57 am

    When I run the application I get a message box “The application failed to initialize properly 0xc0000135″. Is Windows XP supported?

    • 36. Raymond  |  November 25, 2014 at 8:25 am

      Hi Sarah,

      Your system need to have .NET Framework 2.0 or above to run the program. You can download free from Microsoft website.


  • 37. Marcel  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    About the big files hash thing – I ran MD5&SHA Checker twice on a (single) 10,7GB mkv-file – results were the same.
    Using Windows 7 x64 8GB RAM, RAID,0.
    The file is nót located on an external drive.

    • 38. Raymond  |  November 18, 2014 at 10:42 pm

      Hi Marcel,

      Thanks for the information. I believed for Philippe case, it might be operating system or hardware level kinds of compatibility issue.


  • 39. THEODORE HESTON FERNANDEZ  |  November 15, 2014 at 2:58 am

    I just used this utility with a 3.84gb .iso DVD image file [ (e.g. Windows 8.1 with update x64 ] and have no problems. My system is running on win7 Ultimate 64bit on an Intel DH87MC Motherboard and configured for Raid1 [ 8 GB RAM, i5 Processor, AMD Graphics Card].
    I also tried it on a 6.32GB .iso DVD file and it worked right, The checksum results were the same, it did not change [ MD5 SHA1….]

    • 40. Raymond  |  November 15, 2014 at 2:11 pm

      Hi THEODORE,

      Thanks for the information and feedback.


  • 41. Philippe Verdy  |  November 11, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    Never twice the same result on the same unmodified file when using it over really big files such as .iso DVD images larger than 2 GB (e.g. Windows 8.1 installation DVD about 4GB in size).
    Every time I run it, every checksum (MD5, SHA1, ….) changes !

    No such problem with the command line tool frol Microsoft itself.
    Your tool simply does not work properly except for small files.
    And my PC is clean from malwares (checked with MalwareBytes, Avast, Microsoft Security Essential), and with all system updates installed.(OS: Windows 7)
    I have also checked the system drivers (all of them certified, digitally signed and updated), and checked the system memory and cache with advanced tests, and the CPU (with “burning” tests), and storage disks (RAID5 array, and SSD).

    I just think this tool is not compatible with large files and limited to files with positive 32-bit sizes (everything read after this limit returns negative file offsets, and you get unpredictable results.

    • 42. Raymond  |  November 11, 2014 at 10:08 pm

      Hi Philippe,

      Thanks for the comment.

      So far I did not receive any feedback on different checksum issue for hashing large files.

      I did a quick search online and found a related article

      Seems like this problem could be caused by hard disk or memory issue. However, I noticed that you also did a various checks on your system and seems like there is no issue with your hardware.

      I will need to conduct various test on large files and apply necessary patch if possible.


      • 43. Philippe Verdy  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:20 am

        Do you allocate all the file in a single block of memory and a single I/O op for reading it? All Windows software have severe compatibility issues with very large I/O such as 4GiB at once, or using a single large memory block.

        And this is in fact what Microsoft recommends (there’s no utility to allocate a very large buffer more than 4 MiB for performance). Note: your tool is also very slow compared to a Powershell script using Microsoft Cryptography API. Using a stream to process reasonnable block sizes works perfectly.

        There are many related issues, not just in hardware or software but also in the way the machine BIOS configures PCI resources or manages the “Physical Address Extension” or PAE (still used in 64 bit Windows that still has lots of 32 bit components and that runs a 32 bit VM needing PAE (in fact an old Intel/AMD mechanism that has existed just before the release of Windows XP 64-bit and was first used on Linux)..


        My Intel processor is fully 64-bit, PAE enabled, with virtual extension and support for large memory pages. It also has 8 cores. It can also run successfully an hypervisor (Oracle VirtualBox) to start several instances of 32-bit or 64-bit OSes (several Windows, Linux), including with PAE,and NX enabled and accelerated guest drivers. My system runs with 24 GB of RAM (3 banks of 2x4GB, good brand). It is also very well cooled (including the 6 storage disks of the RAID array, and the 512MiB SSD…) with 8 fans (front, rear, inside) and watercooling.

        My Gigabyte motherboard is also very well noted, firmwares are also up to date for the motherboard internal bridges, and the SSD and the RAID array controler.

        Note also that I have an nVidia display board (nVidia has known issues as well for allocating its memory mapped block within the “low” memory space and make it work with PAE along with large I/O performed at the same time on the same bus (notably for the accelerated bus used by PCI Express, and my SSD using.also the accelerated mode.

        I also have an USB3 bus for external devices. Renesas USB3 drivers are known to have issues with some BIOSes but my drivers were corrected and are certified. And they are up to date.

        Also a hotplugging SATA harddisk used for backups. This uses a shared port with the USB3 connector but for now the hard disk slot is empty.
        My motherboard is also very well noted.

        When testing your tool though, there’s no other usage of the USB3 bus, and Windows 7 is running as the host OS (not in a VM). Your tool returns the correct SHA1 result when processing the same files in a Windows 32-bit VM, it just does not work in the host 64-bit Windows 7 (outside any VM or and not running Oracle Virtual Box).

        So really I think you have a compatibiluty issue only in your software (but this may still be a bug in the Windows 7 64-bit kernel). I have not tried it in Windows Server R2….

      • 44. Philippe Verdy  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:34 am

        Note: memtest86+ returns NO error. Neither does the Windows builtin mem test (running also at boot time).

        And I know that this is not a corruption on disk (I have plugged a disk to copy the test file on it) and run your tool over a smaller notebook (also running 64-bit Windows 7, but with 6 GB RAM only).

        I think this is a tricky unknown issue within some motherboard drivers for Windows when negociating bus accesses with other accelerated devices (notably between nVidia display board equipped with 1GB VRAM, the SATA controler, the RAID controler, the 10 Gigabit Ethernet board and the level-3 memory cache in the CPU or the level-4 cache added by the motherboard): above some point, I/O transfers from disk to user memory in your 32-bit application may be corrupted or incorrectly mapped by PAE (timing issues within the memory manager of the kernel). But if this is the case, I have not found any tool to detect the issue (and MemTest86+ does not detect it as it is performed without using acelerated features of other devices in parallel, notably the display).

        I also performed a display “burn test” (with DirectX 11) to see if the display board could cause havoc. But anyway, when I run your tool to test it, I only have the Areo desktop and no extensive use of the GPU (no video played). I have even tried running it without the browser running, and when disabling the antivirus temporarily (and also with unlugging the Ethernet and turning off Wifi). Always the bad inconsistant results for files larger then 2GiB.

      • 45. Raymond  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:42 am

        Hi Philippe,

        Thanks for the informative reply.
        Will need to conduct further test and research to see if this is a known issue for specific operating system/hardware.


  • 46. Bob  |  October 19, 2014 at 7:36 am

    I’m trying to develop hash total on an ISO file. I used the ImgBurn software “to write image file to disc.” I can get a hash total on the desktop ISO file, but cannot get a hash total on the DVD ISO file. I want to make doubly sure the DVD ISO file is identical to the Desktop ISO file. Is this feature available in the Pro version? If not, could this feature be added? Thank you.

    • 47. Raymond  |  October 19, 2014 at 1:34 pm

      Hi Bob,

      This feature is not available in the Pro version and will consider to implement in the future version.

      If I’m not wrong ImbBurn got a verify feature, you may want to find out if it helps for your case.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: