Beam vs GravixlayerSandbox Benchmark Comparison

Beam
Faster in 0 of 2
vs
GravixlayerPre-release
Faster in 2 of 2

Gravixlayer was faster in both 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.

BenchmarkBeamGravixlayerResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
548ms
100% success
102ms
100% success
Gravixlayer faster
5.39x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
96.13s
100% success
58.66s
100% success
Gravixlayer faster
1.64x

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

Beam

100% success
Median
548ms
P95
732ms
P99
739ms
Beam Burst TTI results →

Gravixlayer

100% success
Median
102ms
P95
107ms
P99
107ms
Gravixlayer Burst TTI results →

Gravixlayer had a 5.39x lower median time to interactive (102ms vs 548ms for Beam).

Median time to interactive over time

4 runs from October 9, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

BeamGravixlayer
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

Beam

100% success
Median
96.13s
P95
96.13s
P99
96.13s
Beam DAX results →

Gravixlayer

100% success
Median
58.66s
P95
58.66s
P99
58.66s
Gravixlayer DAX results →

Gravixlayer had a 1.64x lower median total workload time (58.66s vs 96.13s for Beam).

Median total workload time over time

5 runs from October 9, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

BeamGravixlayer
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.

Gravixlayer was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Gravixlayer had a median time to interactive of 102ms versus 548ms for Beam, 5.39x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Gravixlayer had a median total workload time of 58.66s versus 96.13s for Beam, 1.64x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run