diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index fe9c058..c3da110 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -127,8 +127,9 @@ is wrong on subnormals
 (full tables in **[docs/perf.md](docs/perf.md)**):
 
 - **Faster:** whole-array reductions (`Sum`/`Mean`/`Max` at 4 Mi: 2.3–4.5×),
-  row reductions (`SumAxis(1)` 2.2×, `MaxAxis(1)` 1.7×), `Exp` from 256 Ki
-  elements (2.4–5.6×), the `*Into` forms of `Add`/`Mul`/`Sqrt` (faster or at
+  row reductions (`SumAxis(1)` 2.2×, `MaxAxis(1)` 1.7×), float64 `Exp` at
+  every size (on one core 1.2–1.3×; in a `Workspace` on 16 cores 1.3–1.5×
+  up to 16 Ki and 7–17× from 256 Ki), the `*Into` forms of `Add`/`Mul`/`Sqrt` (faster or at
   parity at every size), and `MatMul` against single-threaded OpenBLAS
   (3.7–5.9× from 512²); in a `Workspace`, `x + y` and `sqrt(x*y + x)` match or
   beat NumPy at every size measured; float64 `Log` on one core with AVX2
@@ -136,11 +137,12 @@ is wrong on subnormals
 - **At parity:** `SumAxis(0)`, `Inner` against 16-thread OpenBLAS.
 - **Slower:** `MatMul` against 16-thread OpenBLAS at 512² and up (0.42× at
   512², 0.51× at 1024², measured in one run with OpenBLAS; at 256² ours is
-  1.44× faster); `Dot` and mat·vec against NumPy's 16-thread BLAS (0.69× and 0.52× since v0.6.0's helper pool, measured in one run; 0.16× before); `Exp`
-  below 256 Ki elements (0.82×); the *allocating* forms of elementwise ops up
-  to 256 Ki elements, `Concatenate`/`Stack` and slice copies outside a
-  `Workspace` (0.2–0.5×: Go's allocator and garbage collector, which
-  `Workspace` largely removes).
+  1.44× faster); `Dot` and mat·vec against NumPy's 16-thread BLAS (0.69× and 0.52× since v0.6.0's helper pool, measured in one run; 0.16× before); the
+  *allocating* forms of elementwise ops up to 256 Ki elements (allocating
+  float64 `Exp` with 16 Ps is at parity there, 0.9–1.0×, although its kernel
+  is faster), `Concatenate`/`Stack` and slice copies outside a `Workspace`
+  (0.2–0.5×: Go's allocator and garbage collector, whose cost grows with
+  GOMAXPROCS and which `Workspace` largely removes).
 
 On Apple silicon the GEMM reached parity with tuned BLAS at 1024² (OpenBLAS in
 an arm64 VM, single-threaded vecLib on an M4 Max), and every product beats the
diff --git a/benchmarks/bench_test.go b/benchmarks/bench_test.go
index a29ec7f..f0b4271 100644
--- a/benchmarks/bench_test.go
+++ b/benchmarks/bench_test.go
@@ -79,6 +79,23 @@ func BenchmarkExp(b *testing.B) {
 	}
 }
 
+// BenchmarkExpWS is BenchmarkExp in a Workspace reset every iteration: the
+// kernel without the allocation of each result, whose cost grows with
+// GOMAXPROCS (each garbage-collector cycle involves every P).
+func BenchmarkExpWS(b *testing.B) {
+	for _, n := range elemSizes {
+		ws := nd.NewWorkspace()
+		x := ws.Use(vec(n))
+		b.Run(fmt.Sprintf("n=%d", n), func(b *testing.B) {
+			b.SetBytes(int64(n * 8))
+			for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
+				_ = x.Exp()
+				ws.Reset()
+			}
+		})
+	}
+}
+
 func BenchmarkSqrt(b *testing.B) {
 	for _, n := range elemSizes {
 		x := vec(n)
diff --git a/docs/perf.md b/docs/perf.md
index 6673ee7..a327e8b 100644
--- a/docs/perf.md
+++ b/docs/perf.md
@@ -1634,8 +1634,38 @@ the constant block's layout is tested.
 −47% and −49% against v0.35.0 (`abbench`, 8 interleaved rounds, p = 0.000),
 both allocating, on `BenchmarkDTypeExpLog`'s data.
 
-The float32 kernels for the other architectures are still to write; there
-`Exp` and `Log` run the Go transcriptions.
+Since v0.37.0 these kernels live in go-simd/floats (`floats.Exp`, `Log`,
+`Float32Exp`, `Float32Log`, go-simd/floats#29), with NEON versions of the
+float32 pair for arm64; ndarray calls them (`internal/kernels/explog.go`).
+The NEON kernels are proven correctly rounded over all 2³² inputs on
+darwin/arm64 but were not benchmarked: every arm64 host available was at
+load 48–100. ppc64le, s390x, riscv64 and loong64 still run the Go
+transcriptions.
+
+#### float64 `Exp` on 16 cores: the allocation, not the kernel (2026-11-08)
+
+The README listed float64 `Exp` below 256 Ki as slower than NumPy (0.82×),
+measured with 16 cores. On one core it is faster at every size. With
+GOMAXPROCS = 16 the same serial code (below `ParThreshold`, 32 Ki, nothing
+is split) got slower than with 1: 89 µs against 73 at 16 Ki. The same holds
+for `Add`, which goes from 14 to 23–26 µs, while `AddInto`, which allocates
+nothing, costs 4.3 µs at both. Each result's allocation costs more with more
+Ps: every garbage-collector cycle starts and stops work on all of them. In a
+`Workspace` (`BenchmarkExpWS`) the difference disappears:
+
+| float64 `Exp`, Zen 3, load ≤ 5 | 1 Ki | 16 Ki | 256 Ki | 4 Mi |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| NumPy 2.5.4, `np.exp(a)` (one thread) | 6.0 µs | 85.5 µs | 1.32 ms | 25.0 ms |
+| ours, 1 P, allocating | 4.9 µs | 73 µs | 1.11 ms | 19.3 ms |
+| ours, 16 P, allocating | 5.8–6.6 µs | 83–95 µs | 0.63–0.78 ms | 4.8–6.7 ms |
+| ours, 16 P, `Workspace` | **4.1 µs** | **64 µs** | **0.18 ms** | **1.47 ms** |
+
+`BenchmarkExp` and `BenchmarkExpWS` (`(i%97)·0.5`, the README's data), two
+rounds each at `-cpu 1` and `-cpu 16` on cores 0–15; NumPy medians of nine
+on one pinned core. In a `Workspace` on 16 cores, float64 `Exp` is 1.3–1.5×
+NumPy up to 16 Ki and 7–17× from 256 Ki. Allocating, it is at parity up to
+16 Ki, and at 4 Mi the allocation of each 32 MB result takes about 3.3 ms of
+the 4.8.
 
 ## SIMD coverage