Sandbox0 vs VercelSandbox Benchmark Comparison

Sandbox0
Faster in 0 of 2
vs
Vercel
Faster in 2 of 2

Vercel was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks.

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.

BenchmarkSandbox0VercelResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
10.28s
100% success
423ms
100% success
Vercel faster
24.3x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
124.96s
100% success
83.37s
100% success
Vercel faster
1.50x

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

Sandbox0

100% success
Median
10.28s
P95
22.79s
P99
23.24s
Sandbox0 Burst TTI results →

Vercel

100% success
Median
423ms
P95
562ms
P99
585ms
Vercel Burst TTI results →

Vercel had a 24.3x lower median time to interactive (423ms vs 10.28s for Sandbox0).

Median time to interactive over time

17 runs from July 31, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

Sandbox0Vercel
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

Sandbox0

100% success
Median
124.96s
P95
124.96s
P99
124.96s
Sandbox0 DAX results →

Vercel

100% success
Median
83.37s
P95
83.37s
P99
83.37s
Vercel DAX results →

Vercel had a 1.50x lower median total workload time (83.37s vs 124.96s for Sandbox0).

Median total workload time over time

13 runs from July 31, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

Sandbox0Vercel
View the full DAX leaderboard →

Cost per DAX run

Each provider's DAX median total workload time (run October 30, 2026) multiplied by its published rate at the 8 vCPU / 16 GiB benchmark spec. Workload time excludes sandbox create and destroy, and subscription floors and included credits are not modeled.

Sandbox0

Per GiB-hour (wall clock)
$0.0083per run
124.96s median at $0.2400/hr

$0.015/GiB-hr on the memory limit (16 GiB), billed by the second. Paused sandboxes stop compute charges.

Source pricing page

Vercel

Active CPU + provisioned memory
$0.032per run
83.37s median at $1.3632/hr

$0.128/active-CPU-hr per vCPU + $0.0212/GB-hr provisioned memory (wall clock). CPU upper bound at 100% utilization; real bills for I/O-bound runs are lower.

Source pricing page
Compare sandbox costs across all providers →

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.

Vercel was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Vercel had a median time to interactive of 423ms versus 10.28s for Sandbox0, 24.3x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Vercel had a median total workload time of 83.37s versus 124.96s for Sandbox0, 1.50x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run