Buddy vs GravixlayerSandbox Benchmark Comparison

Buddy
Faster in 0 of 2
vs
GravixlayerPre-release
Faster in 1 of 2

Gravixlayer 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.

BenchmarkBuddyGravixlayerResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
905ms
100% success
102ms
100% success
Gravixlayer faster
8.91x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
59.09s
100% success
58.66s
100% success
Roughly even
1.01x

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

Buddy

100% success
Median
905ms
P95
1.08s
P99
1.11s
Buddy Burst TTI results →

Gravixlayer

100% success
Median
102ms
P95
107ms
P99
107ms
Gravixlayer Burst TTI results →

Gravixlayer had a 8.91x lower median time to interactive (102ms vs 905ms for Buddy).

Median time to interactive over time

4 runs from October 9, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

BuddyGravixlayer
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

Buddy

100% success
Median
59.09s
P95
59.09s
P99
59.09s
Buddy DAX results →

Gravixlayer

100% success
Median
58.66s
P95
58.66s
P99
58.66s
Gravixlayer DAX results →

The medians are within 5% of each other (59.09s vs 58.66s), so this counts as roughly even.

Median total workload time over time

4 runs from October 16, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

BuddyGravixlayer
View the full DAX leaderboard →

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.

Gravixlayer was faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks, and 1 was roughly even. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Gravixlayer had a median time to interactive of 102ms versus 905ms for Buddy, 8.91x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Buddy had a median total workload time of 59.09s and Gravixlayer 58.66s, which counts as roughly even.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run