Briq vs Google Cloud Run
Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated November 13, 2026
Google Cloud Run was faster in the only sandbox benchmark with a speed verdict.
Head to head
- Time to interactive · lower is betterGoogle Cloud Run faster2.13x
Briq
5.72sGoogle Cloud Run
2.69s - Total workload time · lower is betterNo verdict64.47s
Burst TTI
DAX
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 when both providers have at least one successful run in the same benchmark from the last 30 days. A benchmark only gets a verdict when both providers completed at least 50% of its runs. 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.
Google Cloud Run was faster in the only sandbox benchmark with a speed verdict. In Burst TTI (November 13, 2026), Google Cloud Run had a median time to interactive of 2.69s versus 5.72s for Briq, 2.13x faster.
Both providers have results in 2 sandbox benchmarks: Burst TTI and DAX. 1 of them has a speed verdict.
Success rates in the latest runs: Burst TTI: Briq 100%, Google Cloud Run 100%; DAX: Briq 100%, Google Cloud Run 0%. DAX has no speed verdict because Google Cloud Run completed fewer than half of its runs; Briq's median total workload time was 64.47s.
Burst TTI and DAX results are from November 13, 2026.