Agent37 vs E2B
Sandbox Benchmark Comparison · Updated November 6, 2026
vs
E2B was faster in the only shared sandbox benchmark.
Head to head
- Burst TTITime to interactive · lower is betterE2B faster2.07x
Agent37
2.35sE2B
1.13s
Burst TTI
Work at Agent37 or E2B? See where you stand every day, with full run logs, not just on benchmark Friday.Get stealth benchmarks →
Methodology
- One workload, every provider. The same script, payload, and model hit every provider, addressed the way its own API expects. Nobody gets a tuned or special path.
- Repeated on a schedule. Every suite runs many iterations per provider, automated on a recurring schedule, so results reflect steady state rather than one lucky request.
- Raw results published. Every run is committed as JSON to the public benchmarks repo, next to the code that produced it. Nothing is cherry-picked or held back.
- How this comparison is built. Each benchmark compares the two providers' medians; results within 5% count as roughly even. A comparison is published when both providers have at least one successful run in the same benchmark from the last 30 days. A benchmark only gets a verdict when both providers completed at least 50% of its runs. If a provider’s latest run of a benchmark failed, its most recent successful run from that window is used instead.
Frequently asked questions
Have another question? Email us.
E2B was faster in the only shared sandbox benchmark. In Burst TTI (November 6, 2026), E2B had a median time to interactive of 1.13s versus 2.35s for Agent37, 2.07x faster.
More comparisons
Agent37 vs