Vercel was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks.
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.
Time from sandbox creation to the first successful command, with 100 sandboxes launched at the same time.
Time to interactive
Vercel had a 1.29x lower median time to interactive (423ms vs 548ms for Beam).
30 runs from July 3, 2026 to 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
Vercel had a 1.15x lower median total workload time (83.37s vs 96.13s for Beam).
9 runs from September 16, 2026 to October 30, 2026.
Each provider's DAX median total workload time (run October 30, 2026) multiplied by its published rate at the 8 vCPU / 16 GiB benchmark spec. Workload time excludes sandbox create and destroy, and subscription floors and included credits are not modeled.
$0.0000375/core-s (1 core = 2 vCPU, so 4 cores) + $0.0000064/GiB-s.
Source pricing page$0.128/active-CPU-hr per vCPU + $0.0212/GB-hr provisioned memory (wall clock). CPU upper bound at 100% utilization; real bills for I/O-bound runs are lower.
Source pricing pageHave another question? Email us.
Vercel was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Vercel had a median time to interactive of 423ms versus 548ms for Beam, 1.29x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Vercel had a median total workload time of 83.37s versus 96.13s for Beam, 1.15x faster.