Purpose: This paper examines and compares compliance of seven software, namely Calm for Archives Version 9. 3, Collective Access Version 1. 7, Archives Space Version 2. 4. 1, Archivematica Version 1. 8, Adlib XPlus Version 2, Cuadra Star Single version and Eloquent Archives Single version with the existing archival standards. Methodology and Research Design: A researcher deigned checklist consisting of 9 main and 62 sub-sections was used to record 272 features of the archival software, then compared against existing standards and with each other. Findings and Conclusion: Significancant differences were noticed. Calm for Archives, Collective Access, Archives Space, Archivematica, Adlib XPlus, Cuadra Star, Eloquent Archives are (p-value) <0. 05. In addition, the chi-square was larger than the critical table χ 2 with df = 1. Most features and capabilities respectively are archival softwares: Archives Space 54%, Adlib XPlus 39%, Eloquent Archives 37%, Calm for Archives 29%, Collective Access 28%, Archivematica 27%, and Cuadra Star 26%. With respect to the support of metadata standards, Archives Space, Cuadra Star, Eloquent Archives, Archivematica, Collective Access, Calm for Archives, and Adlib XPlus will be archiving, and in support of archival standards, respectively, Archives Space, Eloquent Archives, Adlib XPlus, Cuadra Star, Calm for Archives, Collective Access and Archivematica. Regarding the support of the exchange protocols, Archives Space earned the first position and Adlib XPlus, ranked second, while the rest of the softwares were similar.