raea vs Remotion vs HyperFrames: render speed
The same six React scenes, rendered to mp4 by each tool with its defaults on one Mac. raea finished in 7.2 seconds, Remotion in 25 and HyperFrames in 34.5: 3.5× and 4.8× faster.
raea
7.2s
Remotion
25s
HyperFrames
34.5s
Per-scene results
Median of three warm runs, in seconds. Lower is faster.
| Scene | Frames | raea | Remotion | HyperFrames | raea vs Remotion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| announce-title | 170 | 1.74 | 7.53 | 5.59 | 4.3× |
| terminal-simulator | 200 | 1.32 | 5.21 | 5.81 | 3.9× |
| laptop-frame | 240 | 1.5 | 4.94 | 7.08 | 3.3× |
| punch-lines | 144 | 0.9 | 2.38 | 5.26 | 2.6× |
| prompt-send | 165 | 0.93 | 2.61 | 5.36 | 2.8× |
| agent-steps | 160 | 0.81 | 2.29 | 5.38 | 2.8× |
| Total | 1,079 | 7.2 | 25 | 34.5 | 3.5× |
Method
Measured November 8, 2026 on one Apple M5 Pro Mac: six MIT-licensed snapcn components, 1280 × 720 at 30 fps, rendered to mp4 from each tool's command line with its defaults (Remotion 4.0.390; HyperFrames 0.9.25, drawing the same React components on its hf-seek hook), the median of three warm runs, summed.
Numbers come from the benchmark data published on raea.io's homepage. The scenes are MIT-licensed snapcn components, so anyone can rerun them.
Run it yourself
git clone benchmark repo URL
cd raea-bench
./run.sh # raea, Remotion, HyperFrames, 3 runs eachProposed: publish the benchmark harness so anyone can reproduce it. The repo and script above are placeholders.
Coming next not yet measured: complex 3D scenes, 1080p and 4K, Linux with NVIDIA, Windows. The "20× faster" figure circulating on X should only go on the site once a published run backs it.