Blaxel vs SailSandbox Benchmark Comparison

Blaxel
Faster in 2 of 2
vs
Sail
Faster in 0 of 2

Blaxel 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.

BenchmarkBlaxelSailResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
380ms
100% success
2.14s
92% success
Blaxel faster
5.63x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
52.95s
100% success
67.34s
100% success
Blaxel faster
1.27x

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

Blaxel

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

Sail

92% success
Median
2.14s
P95
2.15s
P99
2.16s
Sail Burst TTI results →

Blaxel had a 5.63x lower median time to interactive (380ms vs 2.14s for Sail).

Median time to interactive over time

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

BlaxelSail
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

Blaxel

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

Sail

100% success
Median
67.34s
P95
67.34s
P99
67.34s
Sail DAX results →

Blaxel had a 1.27x lower median total workload time (52.95s vs 67.34s for Sail).

Median total workload time over time

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

BlaxelSail
View the full DAX leaderboard →

Cost per DAX run

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.

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

Sail

Observed usage
$0.0049per run
67.34s median at $0.2620/hr

$0.015/used vCPU-hr + $0.008/used GiB-hr + $0.0007/GiB-hr NVMe — bills observed usage, not reservations (upper bound shown at full utilization). Plus $0.012 per L Sailbox creation. No charge while sleeping.

Source pricing page
Compare sandbox costs across all providers →

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.

Blaxel was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Blaxel had a median time to interactive of 380ms versus 2.14s for Sail, 5.63x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Blaxel had a median total workload time of 52.95s versus 67.34s for Sail, 1.27x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run