Cheló̱na handles RDF-formats in two phases. In the first phase the RDF-format is parsed using Parboiled2 and an AST is built. In the second phase the AST is interpreted and the selected output format is generated.
Parboiled2 itself is fast, but not as fast as a hand crafted parser. The architectural decision for a two phase processing has some impact on performance, too, even though parsing and AST interpretation are done asynchronously.
So my assumption is that Sesame and Jena might be faster than Cheló̱na.
May be, Cheló̱nas support of JavaScript is some compensation for the assumed performance deviation.