Same Workload.
Fraction of the Cost.

Rust applications use dramatically less compute than Node.js. Pure gives you that efficiency without a rewrite, without new hires, and without changing your code.

The Cloud Cost Problem

Cloud costs scale linearly

More traffic means more containers, bigger instances, higher bills. Node.js applications require significant compute overhead from their runtime, interpreter, and garbage collector.

Rust rewrites are expensive

The traditional path to Rust performance means hiring specialized engineers ($180K+ average), 2-4 months of onboarding, and a 6-18 month rewrite. That's a significant investment before seeing any return.

Optimization has limits

You can optimize your Node.js code, tune your infrastructure, and right-size your containers. But you can't optimize away the fundamental overhead of an interpreted language runtime.

The gap widens at scale

The efficiency difference between Rust and Node.js isn't marginal — published benchmarks show it's measured in multiples. At scale, that multiplier applies directly to your cloud bill.

The Pure Approach

Get Rust efficiency without the rewrite.

01

No Hiring

No Rust engineers to recruit, onboard, or retain. Your existing team keeps working in JavaScript and TypeScript.

02

No Rewrite

No 6-18 month rewrite project. No risk of introducing bugs during migration. Your code stays exactly the same.

03

One API Call

Send your code, get back a native binary. The efficiency gains of Rust, delivered through an API — not a staffing plan.

What the Industry Data Shows

Published, peer-reviewed, and publicly available research.

~97%

less energy consumed by Rust compared to Node.js for equivalent computational tasks, according to peer-reviewed academic research.

Source: Pereira et al., "Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages," SLE 2017 / 2021 update

2–10x

less compute resources typically used by Rust applications compared to Node.js, based on publicly available web framework benchmarks.

Source: TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks (techempower.com), rounds 19–22

~70%

of critical security vulnerabilities in major software systems are memory safety issues — a category Rust eliminates at the language level.

Source: Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC); Google Project Zero

$180K+

average annual salary for a Rust engineer in the US, plus 2–4 months of onboarding time. Hiring is the traditional path to Rust performance — Pure is the alternative.

Source: Levels.fyi, 2024–2025 compensation data; Rust Survey 2024 (blog.rust-lang.org)

Traditional Rewrite vs. Pure

Traditional Rewrite
With Pure
Timeline
6–18 months
One API call
Hiring
Rust engineers ($180K+ avg)
None required
Onboarding
2–4 months per engineer
None
Code changes
Full rewrite
Zero
Risk
New bugs, missed deadlines
Behavior-identical output
Team disruption
Significant
Minimal

See what Pure could save your team

Join the waitlist for early access. We'll share Pure-specific benchmarks before launch.

Performance and cost comparisons on this page reference published industry research comparing Rust and Node.js. Actual results with Pure will depend on application characteristics and workload. Pure-specific benchmarks will be published prior to general availability.

Get Early Access

Be first to know when Pure goes live. No spam — just the launch.

By joining, you confirm you are 18+ and agree to our Privacy Policy