Blaxel vs Sandbox0Sandbox Benchmark Comparison

Blaxel
Faster in 2 of 2
vs
Sandbox0
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.

BenchmarkBlaxelSandbox0ResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
380ms
100% success
10.28s
100% success
Blaxel faster
27.1x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
52.95s
100% success
124.96s
100% success
Blaxel faster
2.36x

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 →

Sandbox0

100% success
Median
10.28s
P95
22.79s
P99
23.24s
Sandbox0 Burst TTI results →

Blaxel had a 27.1x lower median time to interactive (380ms vs 10.28s for Sandbox0).

Median time to interactive over time

17 runs from July 31, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

BlaxelSandbox0
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 →

Sandbox0

100% success
Median
124.96s
P95
124.96s
P99
124.96s
Sandbox0 DAX results →

Blaxel had a 2.36x lower median total workload time (52.95s vs 124.96s for Sandbox0).

Median total workload time over time

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

BlaxelSandbox0
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

Sandbox0

Per GiB-hour (wall clock)
$0.0083per run
124.96s median at $0.2400/hr

$0.015/GiB-hr on the memory limit (16 GiB), billed by the second. Paused sandboxes stop compute charges.

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 10.28s for Sandbox0, 27.1x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Blaxel had a median total workload time of 52.95s versus 124.96s for Sandbox0, 2.36x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run