E2B and Vercel were each faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks.
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.
Time from sandbox creation to the first successful command, with 100 sandboxes launched at the same time.
Time to interactive
Vercel had a 2.99x lower median time to interactive (423ms vs 1.27s for E2B).
144 runs from March 8, 2026 to 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
E2B had a 1.10x lower median total workload time (75.86s vs 83.37s for Vercel).
12 runs from July 21, 2026 to October 30, 2026.
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.
$0.000014/vCPU-s + $0.0000045/GiB-s. Disk (20 GiB Pro) included.
Source pricing page$0.128/active-CPU-hr per vCPU + $0.0212/GB-hr provisioned memory (wall clock). CPU upper bound at 100% utilization; real bills for I/O-bound runs are lower.
Source pricing pageHave another question? Email us.
E2B and Vercel were each faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Vercel had a median time to interactive of 423ms versus 1.27s for E2B, 2.99x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), E2B had a median total workload time of 75.86s versus 83.37s for Vercel, 1.10x faster.