The problem was my hash size. I was using the whole hash that I captured, but as soon as I cut it down to the same length as the example, I achieved the same speed as the bench mark.
The hash in the file.
'Administrator:
ROF:637c7285050ac6a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
The proper format
'Administrator:
ROF:637c7285050ac6a3:5B7D72E6DA1309456B173B05D6F4D93E:0101000000000000C0653150DE09D2019D1E15B28258F0C9000000000200080053004D'
**edit
It appears the hash used in the benchmark is a lot shorter than most of the NTLMV2 hashes Ive seen
Is it possible that the benchmark is using a ntlm hash instead of a ntlmv2?
The hash in the file.
'Administrator:

The proper format
'Administrator:

**edit
It appears the hash used in the benchmark is a lot shorter than most of the NTLMV2 hashes Ive seen
Is it possible that the benchmark is using a ntlm hash instead of a ntlmv2?