Gravixlayer vs TenkiSandbox Benchmark Comparison

GravixlayerPre-release
Faster in 1 of 2
vs
Tenki
Faster in 0 of 2

Gravixlayer was faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks, and 1 was roughly even.

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.

BenchmarkGravixlayerTenkiResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
102ms
100% success
2.10s
100% success
Gravixlayer faster
20.7x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
58.66s
100% success
60.78s
100% success
Roughly even
1.04x

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

Gravixlayer

100% success
Median
102ms
P95
107ms
P99
107ms
Gravixlayer Burst TTI results →

Tenki

100% success
Median
2.10s
P95
2.18s
P99
2.18s
Tenki Burst TTI results →

Gravixlayer had a 20.7x lower median time to interactive (102ms vs 2.10s for Tenki).

Median time to interactive over time

4 runs from October 9, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

GravixlayerTenki
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

Gravixlayer

100% success
Median
58.66s
P95
58.66s
P99
58.66s
Gravixlayer DAX results →

Tenki

100% success
Median
60.78s
P95
60.78s
P99
60.78s
Tenki DAX results →

The medians are within 5% of each other (58.66s vs 60.78s), so this counts as roughly even.

Median total workload time over time

5 runs from October 9, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

GravixlayerTenki
View the full DAX leaderboard →

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.

Gravixlayer was faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks, and 1 was roughly even. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Gravixlayer had a median time to interactive of 102ms versus 2.10s for Tenki, 20.7x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Gravixlayer had a median total workload time of 58.66s and Tenki 60.78s, which counts as roughly even.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run