Blaxel vs sfcompute

Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated October 30, 2026

sfcompute was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks.

Head to head

  • Burst TTITime to interactive · lower is better
    sfcompute faster1.18x
    Blaxel
    380ms
    sfcompute
    322ms
  • DAXTotal workload time · lower is better
    sfcompute faster1.27x
    Blaxel
    52.95s
    sfcompute
    41.72s

Burst TTI

October 30, 2026

Blaxel

100% success
Median
380ms
p95
425ms
p99
438ms
Blaxel Burst TTI results

sfcompute

100% success
Median
322ms
p95
467ms
p99
494ms
sfcompute Burst TTI results

Median time to interactive over time

12 runs · September 4, 2026 to October 30, 2026
Blaxelsfcompute

Blaxel

100% success · October 30, 2026
Median
52.95s
Blaxel DAX results

sfcompute

100% success · October 9, 2026
Median
41.72s
sfcompute DAX results

Median total workload time over time

5 runs · September 16, 2026 to October 9, 2026
Blaxelsfcompute

Cost per DAX run

Blaxel

Active compute (GB-s)
$0.0097per run
52.95s median at $0.6624/hr

$0.0000115/GB-s on allocated RAM while active (16 GiB). CPU is derived from memory — 16 GB maps to ~6 cores, not 8. Upper bound shown.

Source pricing page

sfcompute

Per GiB-hour (parkable)
$0.0085per run
41.72s median at $0.7315/hr

Rollout sandboxes at $0.04572/GiB-hr while active (16 GiB); parked/idle drops to ~$0.000139/GiB-hr. Interactive cpu-8 node is $0.4824/hr with a 15-min minimum.

Source pricing page
Compare sandbox costs across all providers →
Work at Blaxel or sfcompute? See where you stand every day, with full run logs, not just on benchmark Friday.Get stealth benchmarks →

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. If a provider’s latest run of a benchmark failed, its most recent successful run from that window is used instead.

Frequently asked questions

Have another question? Email us.

sfcompute was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), sfcompute had a median time to interactive of 322ms versus 380ms for Blaxel, 1.18x faster. In DAX (October 9, 2026), sfcompute had a median total workload time of 41.72s versus 52.95s for Blaxel, 1.27x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run