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)

Nov 21, 11:06 PM

3afc112

PolkaJam (Recompiler)

Rust

1.4x faster2.20ms

SpaceJam

Rust

1.1x faster2.96ms

PolkaJamBaseline

Rust

baseline3.18ms

TurboJam

C++

1.6x slower5.19ms

JavaJAM

Java

1.9x slower6.00ms

JAM DUNA

2.0x slower6.26ms

Jamzilla

2.2x slower6.91ms

FastRoll

Rust

4.9x slower15.72ms

Vinwolf

Rust

5.4x slower17.22ms

JamZig

Zig

5.7x slower18.17ms

Boka

Swift

12.8x slower40.62ms

TSJam

TypeScript

12.7x slower40.37ms

Jamixir

Elixir

14.5x slower46.02ms

Tessera

Python

20.0x slower63.59ms

JamPy

Python

27.7x slower88.12ms

Typeberry

TypeScript

34.8x slower110.67ms

Strawberry

31.4x slower99.75ms

PyJAMaz

Python

41.1x slower130.46ms

Gossamer JAM

39.8x slower126.35ms

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	3.3	2.87	4.00	1.1x faster
3	PolkaJam	Rust	4.0	2.94	5.44	baseline
4	TurboJam	C++	6.5	4.13	9.46	1.6x 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	9.2	5.22	12.43	2.2x slower
8	FastRoll	Rust	20.6	9.43	20.86	4.9x slower
9	Vinwolf	Rust	24.5	7.57	16.15	5.4x slower
10	JamZig	Zig	26.2	6.91	15.16	5.7x slower
11	Boka	Swift	54.6	26.23	55.13	12.8x slower
12	TSJam	TypeScript	56.6	28.98	71.87	12.7x slower
13	Jamixir	Elixir	74.4	30.15	86.83	14.5x slower
14	Tessera	Python	81.3	54.97	113.37	20.0x slower
15	JamPy	Python	117.6	58.97	163.28	27.7x slower
16	Typeberry	TypeScript	151.9	70.07	173.68	34.8x slower
17	Strawberry	Go	167.3	58.01	174.24	31.4x slower
18	PyJAMaz	Python	179.9	87.87	192.24	41.1x slower
19	Gossamer JAM	Go	208.2	37.12	191.45	39.8x slower

Audit Time Calculator

Baseline Audit Time (days)

Time required for polkajam to complete audit

1PolkaJam (Recompiler)

2.1d

2SpaceJam

2.8d

3PolkaJam

3.0d

4TurboJam

4.9d

5JavaJAM

5.7d

6JAM DUNA

5.9d

7Jamzilla

6.5d

8FastRoll

14.8d

9Vinwolf

16.3d

10JamZig

17.2d

11Boka

38.4d

12TSJam

38.1d

13Jamixir

43.5d

14Tessera

60.0d

15JamPy

83.2d

16Typeberry

104.5d

17Strawberry

94.2d

18PyJAMaz

123.2d

19Gossamer JAM

119.3d

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: Nov 21, 2025, 11:06 PM| Source data from: Nov 21, 2025

Testing protocol conformance at scale. Learn more at jam-conformance | Commit 3afc112 | View all clients