E2B vs sfcompute

Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated October 30, 2026

E2B
Faster in
0of 2 benchmarks
#8 of 32 in Sandbox Provider Rating
vs
sfcompute
Faster in
2of 2 benchmarks
#18 of 32 in Sandbox Provider Rating

sfcompute was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks.

Head to head

  • Burst TTITime to interactive · lower is better
    sfcompute faster3.93x
    E2B
    1.27s
    sfcompute
    322ms
  • DAXTotal workload time · lower is better
    sfcompute faster1.82x
    E2B
    75.86s
    sfcompute
    41.72s

Burst TTI

October 30, 2026
Full leaderboard

E2B

100% success
Median
1.27s
p95
1.47s
p99
1.70s
E2B Burst TTI results

sfcompute

100% success
Median
322ms
p95
467ms
p99
494ms
sfcompute Burst TTI results

Median time to interactive over time

12 runs · September 4, 2026 to October 30, 2026
E2Bsfcompute

DAX

Full leaderboard

E2B

100% success · October 30, 2026
Median
75.86s
E2B DAX results

sfcompute

100% success · October 9, 2026
Median
41.72s
sfcompute DAX results

Median total workload time over time

4 runs · September 16, 2026 to October 9, 2026
E2Bsfcompute

Cost per DAX run

E2B

Per-second wall clock
$0.014per run
75.86s median at $0.6624/hr

$0.000014/vCPU-s + $0.0000045/GiB-s. Disk (20 GiB Pro) included.

Source pricing page

sfcompute

Per GiB-hour (parkable)
$0.0085per run
41.72s median at $0.7315/hr

Rollout sandboxes at $0.04572/GiB-hr while active (16 GiB); parked/idle drops to ~$0.000139/GiB-hr. Interactive cpu-8 node is $0.4824/hr with a 15-min minimum.

Source pricing page
Compare sandbox costs across all providers →
Work at E2B or sfcompute? 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.
Read the full methodology →Raw results on GitHub ↗

Frequently asked questions

Have another question? Email us.

sfcompute was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), sfcompute had a median time to interactive of 322ms versus 1.27s for E2B, 3.93x faster. In DAX (October 9, 2026), sfcompute had a median total workload time of 41.72s versus 75.86s for E2B, 1.82x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run