Skip to content
agentvfs ★ GitHub

← All comparisons

agentvfs vs E2B

Hosted AI-agent code execution sandbox

E2B and agentvfs both target AI agents that run code. E2B is a hosted SaaS product — you call an SDK, get a managed sandbox VM, and pay per usage. agentvfs is an MIT-licensed local runtime — you install one binary and embed the runtime in your own process. The right choice depends on whether you want a managed service or an embeddable component.

E2B rows describe the publicly documented product shape (hosted sandboxes, Python/JS SDKs, AI-agent positioning). We intentionally do not quote E2B latency, pricing, or quota numbers because those change; rows where E2B specifics are workload-dependent are marked qualitatively. agentvfs rows come from the README, ROADMAP, and docs.

Dimension agentvfs E2B Advantage
Deployment model Local runtime — single binary, library API Hosted SaaS sandbox Comparable
License MIT, source on GitHub Proprietary service (SDKs are typically open) agentvfs
Where code runs On the machine your agent runs on, inside a FUSE-mounted vault In a managed remote sandbox Comparable
Workspace persistence Vault is a durable single file; survives restarts; backup is `cp` Sandbox lifecycle is managed by the service agentvfs
Forking per task `avfs vault fork` — milliseconds Spin up a new managed sandbox agentvfs
Checkpoint / rollback First-class `checkpoint save / restore` Not the primary primitive agentvfs
Policy gate before exec PolicyEngine in-process; classify before mount Service-side controls Comparable
Cold start No cold start — runtime is in your process Managed VM provisioning latency (workload-dependent) agentvfs
Network dependency None for execution Requires network to the managed sandbox agentvfs
Language to drive it Anything that can spawn a subprocess and parse JSON Official SDKs (Python, JS, etc.) E2B
Operational burden You run it Vendor runs it E2B

Pick agentvfs when

  • You want to embed the workspace runtime inside your own process — no network round-trip to a managed sandbox
  • You need an MIT-licensed component you can ship in your product without depending on a vendor
  • You want vault forks, checkpoints, and a changed-files report as the primary primitives
  • You already run your agent on hardware you control and want the boundary local to that process

Pick E2B when

  • You want a managed runtime — VMs provisioned, OS patched, capacity scaled by someone else
  • You need polished agent-framework SDKs and out-of-the-box integration with hosted LLM stacks
  • Your agent traffic is bursty and you would rather pay per use than operate a runtime
  • You want the security posture of a hosted sandbox (network egress controls, etc.) without configuring it yourself

They often compose.

It is reasonable to run agentvfs inside E2B. The proxy boundary handles the agent-aware concerns (vault, fork, checkpoint, policy, change summary); E2B handles the lower-level isolation. Pick the pair that matches your threat model.