Which Cesium demo are you comparing against? In order to do an “apples-to-apples” test of Cesium against other WebGL globes, you need to make sure you are comparing the same feature set. For example, most of the Cesium demos are rendering time-dynamic content. This is very different to the static geometry used in every other WebGL globe that I’m aware of. I am also aware that the map you linked to is showing labels for geographic locations and other things as well, so in some cases it may be doing more than Cesium.
Also, what operating system and browser are you using? These play a big role in what the numbers might look like. In fact, since we are using requestAnimationFrame, the Chrome FPS meter is incorrect most of the time.
Finally, we are always working to improve performance in Cesium, so if you have specific use cases where Cesium is too slow or performs poorly, we would love to hear about them. Cesium is still in heavy development, so our overall performance characteristics will continue to improve as we work on it. I also think what you’ll find is that once you populate the globe with a ton of data, Cesium will start to really shine and out-perform many other globes. There will always be use cases where some globes will be better than others, Cesium itself will always be tuned for dynamic-data, but handling static geometry and terrain is also really important to us and is actively being improved.