Registry › Compare › Daytona vs Fence

Daytona vs Fence

Both are Grade C and 2.8 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Daytona leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence; Fence leads on transparency and maintenance. Note: Fence's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage C vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

C Daytona 53.8

Daytona is a Secure and Elastic Infrastructure for Running AI-Generated Code

daytonaio/daytona · #860 overall · #8 Sandboxes & Runtimes · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Daytona if adoption matters most.

+11.8Adoption: 71.6k GitHub stars against 991
A vs CEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 2

C Fence 56.6

Lightweight, container-free sandbox for running commands with network and filesystem restrictions

fencesandbox/fence · #766 overall · #6 Sandboxes & Runtimes · coverage C (2/5)

Choose Fence if transparency and maintenance matter most.

+10.2Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.0 against 5.0
+4.9Maintenance: last push 7d ago, against 81d ago
+1.5Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 7.0 against 5.0

Where they differ

11.2

Safety / IntegrityFence +1.5

12.7

4.2

TransparencyFence +10.2

14.4

6.6

MaintenanceFence +4.9

11.5

19.0

AdoptionDaytona +11.8

7.2

+2.0

Runtime calibrationDaytona +2.0

+0.0

1 dimension identical: Identity 10.8 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Daytona and Fence, two Sandboxes & Runtimes projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Daytonadaytonaio/daytona	Fencefencesandbox/fence
HVTrust score	53.8	56.6
Evidence grade	C	C
Coverage grade	A	C
Overall rank	#860	#766
Rank in Sandboxes & Runtimes	#8	#6
GitHub stars	71.6k	991
Last updated	81d ago	7d ago
Build provenance	No	No
OSSF Scorecard	5.0 / 10	7.0 / 10
License	—	Apache-2.0
Downloads	332k/wk	—
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	11.2	12.7
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	10.8
Transparency / 17	4.2	14.4
Maintenance / 20	6.6	11.5
Adoption / 20	19.0	7.2
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	—
External providers	—	—
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	—	—
Provenance drift	Unknown	—

Open in the live compare tool → Daytona profile Fence profile More Sandboxes & Runtimes →

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.4 →