Registry › Compare › Fence vs OpenSandbox

Fence vs OpenSandbox

OpenSandbox leads on trust: 72.3/100 (Grade B) against 58.2/100 (Grade C), a 14.1-point gap. Fence leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency; OpenSandbox leads on adoption and maintenance, and rests on broader evidence.

C Fence 58.2

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

fencesandbox/fence · #681 overall · #6 Sandboxes & Runtimes · coverage C (2/5)

Choose Fence if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+5.3Safety / Integrity: 79% of recent commits signed, against 26%
+1.7Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.0 against 4.9

B OpenSandbox 72.3

Secure, Fast, and Extensible Sandbox runtime for AI agents.

opensandbox-group/OpenSandbox · #281 overall · #4 Sandboxes & Runtimes · coverage B (3/5)

Choose OpenSandbox if adoption and maintenance matter most.

+9.6Adoption: 15.5k GitHub stars against 981
+6.9Maintenance: last push today, against 4d ago
B vs CEvidence coverage: 3 of 5 independent signal types, against 2

Where they differ

12.7

Safety / IntegrityFence +5.3

7.4

14.4

TransparencyFence +1.7

12.7

13.1

MaintenanceOpenSandbox +6.9

20.0

7.2

AdoptionOpenSandbox +9.6

16.8

+0.0

Runtime calibrationOpenSandbox +4.6

+4.6

1 dimension identical: Identity 10.8 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Fence and OpenSandbox, 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	Fencefencesandbox/fence	OpenSandboxopensandbox-group/OpenSandbox
HVTrust score	58.2	72.3
Evidence grade	C	B
Coverage grade	C	B
Overall rank	#681	#281
Rank in Sandboxes & Runtimes	#6	#4
GitHub stars	981	15.5k
Last updated	4d ago	today
Build provenance	No	No
OSSF Scorecard	7.0 / 10	4.9 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	Apache-2.0
Downloads	—	114k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	12.7	7.4
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	10.8
Transparency / 17	14.4	12.7
Maintenance / 20	13.1	20.0
Adoption / 20	7.2	16.8
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	—	Implemented
External providers	—	2 — Postgres, Redis
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	—	extensions
Provenance drift	—	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Fence profile OpenSandbox 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 →