Isorun vs PromigenceSandbox Benchmark Comparison

Isorun
Faster in 1 of 2
vs
PromigencePre-release
Faster in 0 of 2

Isorun 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.

BenchmarkIsorunPromigenceResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
49ms
100% success
65ms
100% success
Isorun faster
1.34x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
36.13s
100% success
36.19s
100% success
Roughly even
1.00x

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

Isorun

100% success
Median
49ms
P95
57ms
P99
63ms
Isorun Burst TTI results →

Promigence

100% success
Median
65ms
P95
82ms
P99
86ms
Promigence Burst TTI results →

Isorun had a 1.34x lower median time to interactive (49ms vs 65ms for Promigence).

Median time to interactive over time

3 runs from October 20, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

IsorunPromigence
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

Isorun

100% success
Median
36.13s
P95
36.13s
P99
36.13s
Isorun DAX results →

Promigence

100% success
Median
36.19s
P95
36.19s
P99
36.19s
Promigence DAX results →

The medians are within 5% of each other (36.13s vs 36.19s), so this counts as roughly even.

Median total workload time over time

3 runs from October 20, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

IsorunPromigence
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.

Isorun was faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks, and 1 was roughly even. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Isorun had a median time to interactive of 49ms versus 65ms for Promigence, 1.34x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Isorun had a median total workload time of 36.13s and Promigence 36.19s, which counts as roughly even.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run