sfcompute vs Isorun

Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated October 30, 2026

Isorun was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks.

Head to head

  • Burst TTITime to interactive · lower is better
    Isorun faster6.59x
    sfcompute
    322ms
    Isorun
    49ms
  • DAXTotal workload time · lower is better
    Isorun faster1.15x
    sfcompute
    41.72s
    Isorun
    36.13s

Burst TTI

October 30, 2026

sfcompute

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

Isorun

100% success
Median
49ms
p95
57ms
p99
63ms
Isorun Burst TTI results

Median time to interactive over time

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

sfcompute

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

Isorun

100% success · October 30, 2026
Median
36.13s
Isorun DAX results

Median total workload time over time

5 runs · September 16, 2026 to October 9, 2026
sfcomputeIsorun

Cost per DAX run

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

Isorun

Per-second wall clock
$0.0044per run
36.13s median at $0.4400/hr

$0.025/vCPU-hr + $0.015/GiB-hr. Published profile for 8 vCPU + 16 GiB is exactly $0.44/hr.

Source pricing page
Compare sandbox costs across all providers →
Work at sfcompute or Isorun? 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.

Frequently asked questions

Have another question? Email us.

Isorun was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Isorun had a median time to interactive of 49ms versus 322ms for sfcompute, 6.59x faster. In DAX (October 9, 2026), Isorun had a median total workload time of 36.13s versus 41.72s for sfcompute, 1.15x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run