  We empirically analyze two versions of the well-known "randomized rumor
spreading" protocol to disseminate a piece of information in networks. In the
classical model, in each round each informed node informs a random neighbor. In
the recently proposed quasirandom variant, each node has a (cyclic) list of its
neighbors. Once informed, it starts at a random position of the list, but from
then on informs its neighbors in the order of the list. While for sparse random
graphs a better performance of the quasirandom model could be proven, all other
results show that, independent of the structure of the lists, the same
asymptotic performance guarantees hold as for the classical model. In this
work, we compare the two models experimentally. This not only shows that the
quasirandom model generally is faster, but also that the runtime is more
concentrated around the mean. This is surprising given that much fewer random
bits are used in the quasirandom process. These advantages are also observed in
a lossy communication model, where each transmission does not reach its target
with a certain probability, and in an asynchronous model, where nodes send at
random times drawn from an exponential distribution. We also show that
typically the particular structure of the lists has little influence on the
efficiency.
