ToolLineup

All Hash Generator (MD, SHA, CRC & more)

This hash generator computes a wide range of hashes and checksums from any text — MD2, MD4, MD5, SHA-1, the SHA-2 family (SHA-224/256/384/512), the SHA-3 family (SHA3-224/256/384/512), RIPEMD-160, Whirlpool, CRC16, CRC32, Adler32 and NTLM. Each algorithm produces a fixed-length digest used for integrity checks, checksums or protocol compatibility rather than for securing passwords. Everything runs locally in your browser, so the text you paste is never uploaded or transmitted anywhere.

Note: MD6 and RIPEMD-128/256/320 are intentionally left out — no reliable, well-tested JavaScript implementations exist.

MD family

MD2
—
MD4
—
MD5
—

SHA-1 / SHA-2

SHA-1
—
SHA-224
—
SHA-256
—
SHA-384
—
SHA-512
—

SHA-3

SHA3-224
—
SHA3-256
—
SHA3-384
—
SHA3-512
—

RIPEMD

RIPEMD-160
—

Checksums

CRC16
—
CRC32
—
Adler32
—

Windows / Other

NTLM
—
Whirlpool
—

Frequently asked questions

Is MD5 secure?

No — MD5, along with MD2, MD4 and SHA-1, is cryptographically broken and unsuitable for security purposes such as signatures or password storage; they remain useful only for non-security checksums like file-integrity verification or cache keys.

Should I use these hashes to store passwords?

No — none of the algorithms here are designed for password storage because they are all fast by design, which makes brute-forcing stolen hashes cheap; use a slow, tunable algorithm like bcrypt instead.

Why aren’t MD6 or RIPEMD-128/256/320 included?

MD6 was never formally standardized and has no reliable JavaScript implementation, and RIPEMD-160 is the only member of the RIPEMD family with a well-tested implementation available — RIPEMD-128, RIPEMD-256 and RIPEMD-320 are rarely used today and aren’t reliably supported in the JavaScript ecosystem.

What is NTLM and how is it different from MD4?

NTLM is the password hash format used internally by Windows, and it is computed exactly like MD4 except the input text is encoded as UTF-16LE instead of UTF-8 before hashing.

Which hash algorithm should I use for verifying file integrity?

SHA-256 is the standard choice for file integrity today, since it has no known practical collision attacks and is what most modern checksums, such as package managers and download mirrors, publish; CRC32 is faster but is meant to catch accidental corruption, not intentional tampering.

Related tools