sfcompute vs Superserve

Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated October 30, 2026

sfcompute was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks.

Head to head

  • Burst TTITime to interactive · lower is better
    sfcompute faster1.15x
    sfcompute
    322ms
    Superserve
    371ms
  • DAXTotal workload time · lower is better
    sfcompute faster1.54x
    sfcompute
    41.72s
    Superserve
    64.26s

Burst TTI

October 30, 2026

sfcompute

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

Superserve

100% success
Median
371ms
p95
655ms
p99
705ms
Superserve Burst TTI results

Median time to interactive over time

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

sfcompute

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

Superserve

100% success · October 30, 2026
Median
64.26s
Superserve DAX results

Median total workload time over time

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

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

Superserve

Per-second wall clock
$0.012per run
64.26s median at $0.6624/hr

$0.0504/vCPU-hr + $0.0162/GiB-hr + storage $0.000108/GiB-hr.

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

sfcompute was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), sfcompute had a median time to interactive of 322ms versus 371ms for Superserve, 1.15x faster. In DAX (October 9, 2026), sfcompute had a median total workload time of 41.72s versus 64.26s for Superserve, 1.54x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run