Sail vs Tensorlake
Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated October 30, 2026
Sail and Tensorlake were each faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks.
Head to head
Burst TTI
Median time to interactive over time
Median total workload time over time
Cost per DAX run
Sail
Observed usage$0.015/used vCPU-hr + $0.008/used GiB-hr + $0.0007/GiB-hr NVMe — bills observed usage, not reservations (upper bound shown at full utilization). Plus $0.012 per L Sailbox creation. No charge while sleeping.
Source pricing pageTensorlake
Active CPU + allocated RAM$0.07/core-hr active CPU + $0.015/GB-hr RAM (on-demand rates; Pro is ~40% lower).
Source pricing pageMethodology
- 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.
Sail and Tensorlake were each faster in 1 of 2 shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Tensorlake had a median time to interactive of 1.03s versus 2.14s for Sail, 2.08x faster. In DAX (October 23, 2026), Sail had a median total workload time of 67.34s versus 78.16s for Tensorlake, 1.16x faster.