The benchmarks were run on MacOS, and actually execute an interrupt for debugging, MacOS then checks if the process is being debugged. Wasm3 just exit(1) and prints a message.
And as to why the rest are faster, I spent much time optimizing the interpreter and learning what the best way to write interpreters is. Its mostly jump threading and Mixed Data.
I found that most Wasm interpreters are not particularly good at calls. Wizard is not as fast as wasm3 or wamr in raw speed, but is much faster on calls, particularly because it does not copy arguments (value stacks can be overlapped). But Wizard's primary motivation is to be memory efficient, so it interprets in-place. It also supports instrumentation.
And as to why the rest are faster, I spent much time optimizing the interpreter and learning what the best way to write interpreters is. Its mostly jump threading and Mixed Data.