E2B has an HVTrust score of 78.3/100 (Grade B), ranked #77 of 1308 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for E2B?

E2B scores 78.3/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 13.5k GitHub stars and is categorized under Sandboxes & Runtimes.

E2B

e2b-dev/e2b

Open-source, secure environment with real-world tools for enterprise-grade agents.

Sandboxes & Runtimes Python Grade B Listed Apache-2.0

78.3/100

Rank #77 of 1308

Compare E2B

How does it stack up against its Sandboxes & Runtimes neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.

Open compare tool Suggest correction

Listing state

Listed

Evidence coverage

Grade A · 4/5 signals

Last push

2026-08-24 · 1d ago

Recent change

Rank

Is E2B safe? E2B scores 78.3/100 (Grade B), ranked #77 of 1308 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage A (4 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 6.7/10; 84% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-24. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in Sandboxes & Runtimes

#1 BoxLite — 85.2 (A) → #3 Daytona — 67.6 (B) → #4 Container Use — 60.0 (C) → #5 Agent Infra Sandbox — 53.2 (C) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.

Recent Changes

2026-08-18

Rank Moved

Rank rose 11 spots (#86 → #75)

2026-08-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 16 spots (#68 → #84)

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 6.7/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.

Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.

Compare with BoxLite Get email alerts for E2B View Sandboxes & Runtimes Report missing data

88.4

Activity sub-score · out of 100

In Sandboxes & Runtimes

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade B reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage A is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (4 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-25

Activity & Reach

Stars

13.5k

Forks

1.0k

Last Push

2026-08-24

yesterday

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

981,689

npm+pypi

HN mentions (30d)

Open Issues

Rank Change

was #77

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs Sandboxes & Runtimes

78.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

E2B Sandboxes & Runtimes average (10 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits

12.6 / 25

2.2 above avg 10.4

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

0.7 below avg 11.5

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

14.2 / 17

1.7 above avg 12.5

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

19.8 / 20

4.4 above avg 15.4

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

17.9 / 20

6.7 above avg 11.2

Activity Inputs

88.4 / 100

StarsRepository reach

24.8 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

24.9 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

24.6 / 25

CommunityFork signal

14.0 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

6.7 / 10

OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 24, 2026

Signed Commits

84%

of last 100 commits verified

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 4

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 3

Contributors 10

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 6

SAST 10

Security-Policy 0

Signed-Releases -1

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 10

Is E2B safe?

Public supply-chain signals for E2B are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but E2B carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.

Does E2B publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for E2B. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.

Does E2B have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

E2B has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.7/10. The Scorecard checks for branch protection, signed releases, dependency updates, fuzzing, code review, and other supply-chain hygiene items. See the full check breakdown on this page.

Is E2B actively maintained?

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).

What license does E2B use?

E2B ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are E2B's commits signed?

84% of the last 100 commits to E2B are verified-signed (GPG, SSH, S/MIME, or GitHub's signing flow). Signed commits help confirm that code was authored by who the commit claims.

Not a safety endorsement. HVTracker describes what public signals show, not whether a project is safe for your use case. Run your own security review before adopting in production.

Compare E2B head-to-head

E2B vs BoxLite → E2B vs Daytona → E2B vs Container Use →

AI agent surface

MCP, providers, tool surface

Scored in HVTrust

These runtime-trust fields — detected from public repo docs and manifests — contribute a bounded adjustment to this project's HVTrust score alongside supply-chain evidence. The exact values each field can add or subtract are documented in the methodology → Compare this surface across every listed agent in the capability matrix →

MCP Server Support

medium confidence

Declared

MCP support appears present, but direct server implementation is less certain.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

high confidence

1 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.

Tool / Plugin Surface

None detected

No clear plugin system or broad tool surface detected.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

Package Provenance Drift

high confidence

Match

Published package metadata matches the tracked repo

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

MCP signal live
External deps live
Tool / plugin surface live
Package provenance drift live

Maintain E2B?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores E2B from public signals only — we never contact maintainers first. If a signal is wrong, stale, or missing (provenance you publish, a Scorecard you run, signed releases), tell us and we'll review it. Corrections are public and tracked on GitHub.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history

2026-08-18

Rank Moved

Rank rose 11 spots (#86 → #75)

2026-08-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 16 spots (#68 → #84)

2026-05-29

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 10.1pts (58.9 → 69.0)

2026-05-28

Activity Score Changed

Activity score up 20pts (63 → 84)

GitHub → PyPI: e2b npm: @e2b/sdk

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/e2b.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/e2b)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/e2b"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/e2b.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Sandboxes & Runtimes

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · npm Registry (downloads, provenance) · PyPI / pypistats (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI · Algolia HN Search API
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON