RegistryCompare › E2B vs Fence

E2B vs Fence

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of E2B 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.

E2B leads on trust — 78.4/100 (Grade B) vs 60.0/100 (Grade C), a 18.4-point gap. Full breakdown below.
Signal E2Be2b-dev/e2b Fencefencesandbox/fence
HVTrust score 78.4 60.0
Evidence grade B C
Coverage grade A C
Overall rank #81 #346
Rank in Sandboxes & Runtimes #2 #4
GitHub stars 13.6k 935
Last updated today 1d ago
Build provenance No No
OSSF Scorecard 6.7 / 10 7.1 / 10
License Apache-2.0 Apache-2.0
Downloads 982k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25 12.6 12.8
Identity & provenance / 18 10.8 10.8
Transparency / 17 14.2 14.5
Maintenance / 20 19.9 15.7
Adoption / 20 17.9 7.1
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server Declared
External providers 1 — E2B 1 — Redis
Requires API keys Yes No
Plugin surface extensions
Provenance drift Match
Open in the live compare tool → E2B 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 v4.3 →