Blaxel vs Tensorlake

Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated October 30, 2026

Blaxel was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks.

Head to head

  • Burst TTITime to interactive · lower is better
    Blaxel faster2.71x
    Blaxel
    380ms
    Tensorlake
    1.03s
  • DAXTotal workload time · lower is better
    Blaxel faster1.48x
    Blaxel
    52.95s
    Tensorlake
    78.16s

Burst TTI

October 30, 2026

Blaxel

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

Tensorlake

100% success
Median
1.03s
p95
2.24s
p99
5.25s
Tensorlake Burst TTI results

Median time to interactive over time

87 runs · May 6, 2026 to October 30, 2026
BlaxelTensorlake

Blaxel

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

Tensorlake

100% success · October 23, 2026
Median
78.16s
Tensorlake DAX results

Median total workload time over time

13 runs · August 14, 2026 to October 23, 2026
BlaxelTensorlake

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

Tensorlake

Active CPU + allocated RAM
$0.017per run
78.16s median at $0.8000/hr

$0.07/core-hr active CPU + $0.015/GB-hr RAM (on-demand rates; Pro is ~40% lower).

Source pricing page
Compare sandbox costs across all providers →
Work at Blaxel or Tensorlake? 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.

Blaxel was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Blaxel had a median time to interactive of 380ms versus 1.03s for Tensorlake, 2.71x faster. In DAX (October 23, 2026), Blaxel had a median total workload time of 52.95s versus 78.16s for Tensorlake, 1.48x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run