Arker vs BlaxelSandbox Benchmark Comparison

Arker
Faster in 1 of 2
vs
Blaxel
Faster in 1 of 2

Arker and Blaxel were each faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks.

Shared benchmarks
2
Last run
October 30, 2026
Want the full run details?Sign up free →

Scorecard

Median of each benchmark's primary metric; lower is better. Medians within 5% count as roughly even, and a benchmark gets no speed verdict when either provider completed fewer than 50% of runs.

BenchmarkArkerBlaxelResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
324ms
100% success
380ms
100% success
Arker faster
1.17x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
64.68s
100% success
52.95s
100% success
Blaxel faster
1.22x

Burst TTI

Run October 30, 2026

Time from sandbox creation to the first successful command, with 100 sandboxes launched at the same time.

Time to interactive

Arker

100% success
Median
324ms
P95
394ms
P99
403ms
Arker Burst TTI results →

Blaxel

100% success
Median
380ms
P95
425ms
P99
438ms
Blaxel Burst TTI results →

Arker had a 1.17x lower median time to interactive (324ms vs 380ms for Blaxel).

Median time to interactive over time

16 runs from August 7, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

ArkerBlaxel
View the full Burst TTI leaderboard →

DAX

Run October 30, 2026

A real developer workload: install system packages, download Bun, clone the opencode repo, then run bun install and bun typecheck.

Total workload time

Arker

100% success
Median
64.68s
P95
64.68s
P99
64.68s
Arker DAX results →

Blaxel

100% success
Median
52.95s
P95
52.95s
P99
52.95s
Blaxel DAX results →

Blaxel had a 1.22x lower median total workload time (52.95s vs 64.68s for Arker).

Median total workload time over time

14 runs from August 14, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

ArkerBlaxel
View the full DAX leaderboard →

Methodology

  • One workload, every provider. The same script, payload, and model hit every provider, addressed the way its own API expects. Nobody gets a tuned or special path.
  • Repeated on a schedule. Every suite runs many iterations per provider, automated on a recurring schedule, so results reflect steady state rather than one lucky request.
  • Raw results published. Every run is committed as JSON to the public benchmarks repo, next to the code that produced it. Nothing is cherry-picked or held back.
  • How this comparison is built. Each benchmark compares the two providers' medians; results within 5% count as roughly even. A comparison is published only when both providers completed at least 50% of runs in 2 or more shared benchmarks run in the last 30 days.

Frequently asked questions

Have another question? Email us.

Arker and Blaxel were each faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Arker had a median time to interactive of 324ms versus 380ms for Blaxel, 1.17x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Blaxel had a median total workload time of 52.95s versus 64.68s for Arker, 1.22x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run