Superserve vs VercelSandbox Benchmark Comparison

Superserve
Faster in 2 of 2
vs
Vercel
Faster in 0 of 2

Superserve 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.

BenchmarkSuperserveVercelResultRatio
Burst TTI
Time to interactive · Run October 30, 2026
371ms
100% success
423ms
100% success
Superserve faster
1.14x
DAX
Total workload time · Run October 30, 2026
64.26s
100% success
83.37s
100% success
Superserve faster
1.30x

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

Superserve

100% success
Median
371ms
P95
655ms
P99
705ms
Superserve Burst TTI results →

Vercel

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

Superserve had a 1.14x lower median time to interactive (371ms vs 423ms for Vercel).

Median time to interactive over time

26 runs from July 7, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

SuperserveVercel
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

Superserve

100% success
Median
64.26s
P95
64.26s
P99
64.26s
Superserve DAX results →

Vercel

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

Superserve had a 1.30x lower median total workload time (64.26s vs 83.37s for Vercel).

Median total workload time over time

16 runs from July 24, 2026 to October 30, 2026.

SuperserveVercel
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.

Superserve

Per-second wall clock
$0.012per run
64.26s median at $0.6624/hr

$0.0504/vCPU-hr + $0.0162/GiB-hr + storage $0.000108/GiB-hr.

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.

Superserve was faster in both shared sandbox benchmarks. In Burst TTI (October 30, 2026), Superserve had a median time to interactive of 371ms versus 423ms for Vercel, 1.14x faster. In DAX (October 30, 2026), Superserve had a median total workload time of 64.26s versus 83.37s for Vercel, 1.30x faster.

PartnersGoogle Cloud Run