I think it is record time, as I understand it if this vaccine (and many others) had been under the regulatory regimes in those jurisdictions they would have been ahead of that pace as well. As far as I can tell the 1st phase of the Spunik V trial was injecting everyone in the building where they were developing it and fully half the participants got a fever from the vaccine:
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)31866-3/full...
(The fever thing I don't think is actually a big deal, but is certainly not desirable if you want people to take a vaccine!)
The vaccines in question mostly got out ahead of their production capacity anyway too, so the difference is not consequential.
> fully half the participants got a fever from the vaccine
A mild fever, with one participant getting a moderate fever. Very small sample size, so it's not clear how that compares to the Pfizer vaccine. That appears to cause severe enough fever on occasion (~0.1%) that "who pays for the rare precautionary hospitalizations?" could be a very a real issue in countries like the US without public health care. The % of temporary side effects reported is significantly more than most other vaccines.
As you say, the fevers are probably just temporary side effects of the immune response and the supermajority of people recover very quickly (~24hrs or less). But it is an issue that needs monitoring - the trials really aren't that big, so it'll take quite a bit more data to know if those vaccines are safer than covid itself for the not-at-risk population.
(The fever thing I don't think is actually a big deal, but is certainly not desirable if you want people to take a vaccine!)
The vaccines in question mostly got out ahead of their production capacity anyway too, so the difference is not consequential.