Head to head
- Upload (10 MB)Upload time · lower is betterArchil faster1.96x
Archil
392msNeon
769ms - Download (10 MB)Download time · lower is betterArchil faster1.46x126ms184ms
- Snapshot createSnapshot create time · lower is betterNo verdict
Upload (10 MB)
Median upload time over time
ArchilNeon
Download (10 MB)
Median download time over time
ArchilNeon
Snapshot create
Work at Archil or Neon? See where you stand every day, with full run logs, not just on benchmark Friday.Get stealth benchmarks →
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 the 10 MB storage lifecycle benchmark reliably: at least 50% success for each provider, in benchmark runs from the last 30 days. If a provider’s latest run of a storage measurement failed, its most recent successful run from that window is used instead.
Frequently asked questions
Have another question? Email us.
Archil was faster in both storage measurements with a speed verdict. In Upload (10 MB) (October 23, 2026), Archil had a median upload time of 392ms versus 769ms for Neon, 1.96x faster. In Download (10 MB) (October 23, 2026), Archil had a median download time of 126ms versus 184ms for Neon, 1.46x faster.