E2B vs VercelSandbox Benchmark Comparison

E2B
Faster in 1 of 2
vs
Vercel
Faster in 1 of 2

E2B and Vercel were each faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks.

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.

BenchmarkE2BVercelResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
1.27s
100% success
423ms
100% success
Vercel faster
2.99x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
75.86s
100% success
83.37s
100% success
E2B faster
1.10x

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

E2B

100% success
Median
1.27s
P95
1.47s
P99
1.70s
E2B Burst TTI results →

Vercel

100% success
Median
423ms
P95
562ms
P99
585ms
Vercel Burst TTI results →

Vercel had a 2.99x lower median time to interactive (423ms vs 1.27s for E2B).

Median time to interactive over time

144 runs from March 8, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

E2BVercel
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

E2B

100% success
Median
75.86s
P95
75.86s
P99
75.86s
E2B DAX results →

Vercel

100% success
Median
83.37s
P95
83.37s
P99
83.37s
Vercel DAX results →

E2B had a 1.10x lower median total workload time (75.86s vs 83.37s for Vercel).

Median total workload time over time

12 runs from July 21, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

E2BVercel
View the full DAX leaderboard →

Cost per DAX run

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.

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

Vercel

Active CPU + provisioned memory
$0.032per run
83.37s median at $1.3632/hr

$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 page
Compare sandbox costs across all providers →

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.

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.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run