JAM

Conformance Performance

Important Note

This leaderboard highlights performance differences between JAM implementations. All implementations are works in progress and none are fully conformant yet. The rankings serve to track relative performance improvements over time.

Performance Comparison

All implementations relative to PolkaJam(aggregate weighted scores - see methodology below)

Oct 8, 12:11 PM

bd2c401

PolkaJam (Recompiler)

Rust

1.4x faster2.20ms

SpaceJam

Rust

1.1x slower3.43ms

PolkaJamBaseline

Rust

baseline3.18ms

TurboJam

C++

1.4x slower4.56ms

JavaJAM

Java

1.9x slower6.00ms

JAM DUNA

2.0x slower6.26ms

Jamzilla

4.1x slower13.15ms

FastRoll

Rust

5.6x slower17.95ms

Vinwolf

Rust

5.4x slower17.22ms

JamZig

Zig

5.6x slower17.90ms

Boka

Swift

10.9x slower34.50ms

TSJam

TypeScript

11.6x slower36.92ms

Jamixir

Elixir

14.5x slower46.02ms

JamPy

Python

25.1x slower79.68ms

Tessera

Python

33.3x slower105.81ms

PyJAMaz

Python

41.1x slower130.46ms

Typeberry

TypeScript

93.5x slower297.08ms

Logarithmic scale • Lower is better

Percentiles:

P50

P90

P99

<1.2x

<2x

<10x

>50x

Performance Rankings

Baseline: PolkaJam(Score: 4.0)

Rank	Team	Language	Score	P50 (ms)	P90 (ms)	Relative Performance
1	PolkaJam (Recompiler)	Rust	2.5	2.10	3.23	1.4x faster
2	SpaceJam	Rust	3.8	3.27	4.91	1.1x slower
3	PolkaJam	Rust	4.0	2.94	5.44	baseline
4	TurboJam	C++	5.9	3.84	8.54	1.4x slower
5	JavaJAM	Java	8.0	4.86	10.75	1.9x slower
6	JAM DUNA	Go	8.1	5.15	11.20	2.0x slower
7	Jamzilla	Go	17.9	8.71	18.08	4.1x slower
8	FastRoll	Rust	23.1	12.30	24.96	5.6x slower
9	Vinwolf	Rust	24.5	7.57	16.15	5.4x slower
10	JamZig	Zig	26.3	6.77	15.10	5.6x slower
11	Boka	Swift	42.6	28.37	58.12	10.9x slower
12	TSJam	TypeScript	52.1	25.31	66.92	11.6x slower
13	Jamixir	Elixir	74.4	30.15	86.83	14.5x slower
14	JamPy	Python	106.9	53.95	146.59	25.1x slower
15	Tessera	Python	145.8	80.33	184.73	33.3x slower
16	PyJAMaz	Python	179.9	87.87	192.24	41.1x slower
17	Typeberry	TypeScript	355.2	127.17	245.58	93.5x slower

Audit Time Calculator

Baseline Audit Time (days)

Time required for polkajam to complete audit

1PolkaJam (Recompiler)

2.1d

2SpaceJam

3.2d

3PolkaJam

3.0d

4TurboJam

4.3d

5JavaJAM

5.7d

6JAM DUNA

5.9d

7Jamzilla

12.4d

8FastRoll

16.9d

9Vinwolf

16.3d

10JamZig

16.9d

11Boka

32.6d

12TSJam

34.9d

13Jamixir

43.5d

14JamPy

75.2d

15Tessera

99.9d

16PyJAMaz

123.2d

17Typeberry

280.5d

Note: These calculations show the real-world impact of performance differences on audit requirements.

Scoring Methodology

Weighted scoring system that considers full performance distribution. Our scoring system prioritizes consistent, predictable performance by weighing multiple statistical metrics:

Median (P50)

35%

Typical performance

90th Percentile

25%

Consistency

Mean

20%

Average

99th Percentile

10%

Worst case

Consistency

10%

Lower variance

How it works:

1. Performance measurements are based on the public W3F test vector traces
2. For each benchmark, we calculate a weighted score using the metrics above
3. We use geometric mean across all benchmarks to aggregate metrics
4. Teams are ranked by their final weighted score (lower is better)
5. Polkajam (interpreted) serves as the baseline (1.0x) for relative comparisons

Note: Only teams with data for all four benchmarks (Safrole, Fallback, Storage, Storage Light) are included in the overview. Zero values are excluded from calculations as they likely represent measurement errors.

Performance data updated regularly. Version: 0.7.0| Last updated: Oct 8, 2025, 12:11 PM| Source data from: Oct 8, 2025

Testing protocol conformance at scale. Learn more at jam-conformance | Commit bd2c401 | View all clients