Blaxel vs SuperserveSandbox Benchmark Comparison

Blaxel
Faster in 1 of 2
vs
Superserve
Faster in 0 of 2

Blaxel was faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks, and 1 was roughly even.

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.

BenchmarkBlaxelSuperserveResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
380ms
100% success
371ms
100% success
Roughly even
1.02x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
52.95s
100% success
64.26s
100% success
Blaxel faster
1.21x

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 →

Superserve

100% success
Median
371ms
P95
655ms
P99
705ms
Superserve Burst TTI results →

The medians are within 5% of each other (380ms vs 371ms), so this counts as roughly even.

Median time to interactive over time

26 runs from July 7, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

BlaxelSuperserve
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 →

Superserve

100% success
Median
64.26s
P95
64.26s
P99
64.26s
Superserve DAX results →

Blaxel had a 1.21x lower median total workload time (52.95s vs 64.26s for Superserve).

Median total workload time over time

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

BlaxelSuperserve
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

Superserve

Per-second wall clock
$0.012per run
64.26s median at $0.6624/hr

$0.0504/vCPU-hr + $0.0162/GiB-hr + storage $0.000108/GiB-hr.

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 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks, and 1 was roughly even. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Blaxel had a median time to interactive of 380ms and Superserve 371ms, which counts as roughly even. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Blaxel had a median total workload time of 52.95s versus 64.26s for Superserve, 1.21x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run