Gravixlayer vs Kosa8
Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated November 13, 2026
Gravixlayer was faster in the only sandbox benchmark with a speed verdict.
Head to head
- Time to interactive · lower is betterGravixlayer faster4.56x
Gravixlayer
400msKosa8
1.83s - Total workload time · lower is betterNo verdict59.08s
Burst TTI
DAX
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 when both providers have at least one successful run in the same benchmark from the last 30 days. A benchmark only gets a verdict when both providers completed at least 50% of its runs. 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.
Gravixlayer was faster in the only sandbox benchmark with a speed verdict. In Burst TTI (November 13, 2026), Gravixlayer had a median time to interactive of 400ms versus 1.83s for Kosa8, 4.56x faster.
Both providers have results in 2 sandbox benchmarks: Burst TTI and DAX. 1 of them has a speed verdict.
Success rates in the latest runs: Burst TTI: Gravixlayer 100%, Kosa8 100%; DAX: Gravixlayer 100%, Kosa8 0%. DAX has no speed verdict because Kosa8 completed fewer than half of its runs; Gravixlayer's median total workload time was 59.08s.
Burst TTI and DAX results are from November 13, 2026.