Benchmarks
Benchmark results and methodology comparing Tenki runners against GitHub-hosted runners across real open-source build workloads.
Tenki runners run on modern bare-metal hardware, so the same workflows finish faster than on the older VM instances GitHub Actions uses. Because the per-minute rate is lower too, moving to a larger runner often speeds up a build while still costing less. The numbers below compare identical workflows on Tenki and GitHub-hosted runners.
How we benchmarked
- Tenki runner:
tenki-standard-medium-4c-8g(4 vCPU, 8 GB RAM, bare-metal x64 Linux, one ephemeral VM per job). - GitHub baseline:
ubuntu-latest(2 vCPU, 7 GB RAM, GitHub-hosted Linux). - Workflow parity: identical YAML on both sides, with only the
runs-onvalue changed. No caching plugins, prebuilt images, or custom action substitutions. - Cache state: warm. Each workload ran three consecutive times per runner, and the third run is reported.
- Sample size: 3 runs per workload per runner. The numbers below are the median of the warm-cache runs.
- Workloads: real, reproducible builds from public open-source projects (Rust, Docker, Node.js, Go, Android, n8n).
- Date range: April 2026, re-run quarterly.
Results vs GitHub-hosted runners
| Workload | GitHub-hosted | Tenki | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
Rust cargo build | 5s | 3s | 40% faster |
| Docker build | 27s | 19s | 30% faster |
Node.js npm install | 10s | 8s | 20% faster |
| Go build | 10s | 4s | 60% faster |
Android assembleDebug | 1m 38s | 1m 2s | 37% faster |
| n8n monorepo (full CI) | 55m 58s | 29m 15s | 48% faster |
Raw logs and workflow files are open source. For a specific workload reproduction, write to hello@tenki.cloud.
Cost
On common CI workloads Tenki runs the same jobs up to 60% cheaper than GitHub-hosted runners, billed per second of job runtime with no startup surcharge. GitHub rounds each job up to the next whole minute, so the gap is widest on short jobs. See the pricing page for the full rate card across vCPU, memory, and macOS profiles.