Online Material: List of inverted models with explanation of the applied inversion techniques, description of conversion of inverted models to a unified discretization, and figures of original and processed inversion results. Finite-fault-slip inversions provide crucial information on earthquake rupture phenomena. Many slip-inversion methods exist and differ in how the rupture model is parameterized and which regularizations or constraints are applied (e.g., Ide, 2007, and references therein). Some methods are utilized even routinely for large earthquakes and published online (e.g., the U.S. Geological Survey website http://earthquake.usgs.gov/, last accessed August 2015). However, the slip-inversion results obtained by various authors for the same event may differ (e.g., Clevede et al. , 2004). There is currently no consensus about which slip-inversion method is preferable, and there are concerns about the reliability of the inferred source models due to the nonuniqueness or ill conditioning of the inverse problem (Hartzell et al. , 2007; Zahradnik and Gallovic, 2010; Gallovic and Zahradnik, 2011; Shao and Ji, 2012). Therefore, slip inversion is still a subject of active research. A requisite to understand the variability of slip-inversion results across different methods is the characterization of their similarities and differences. Methods to compare spatial distributions of final slip have been previously developed and applied to synthetic and real cases (Clevede et al. , 2004; Razafindrakoto et al. , 2015; Zhang et al. , 2015). Here, we propose an approach to compare the complete space–time evolution of rupture models. The basic ideas behind our comparison technique are as follows. If the fault geometry is assumed, the forward problem of the slip inversion is a linear mapping from the model space (the spatial–temporal distribution of slip) to the data space (the seismograms) by means of the representation theorem (e.g., Aki and Richards, 2002). The spectral decomposition of the forward operator …