E2B vs Modal
| E2B | Modal | |
|---|---|---|
| Isolation | Firecracker microVM | gVisor |
| Cold start | 150ms | 800ms |
| Price / vCPU-hr | $0.05 | $0.14 |
| GPU | No | T4 → B200, incl. H100 |
| Session limit | Up to 24h | Configurable |
| Persistence | Pause/resume with memory state, snapshots | Volumes; ephemeral compute |
| MCP support | n/a | n/a |
| Free tier | $100 one-time credit (Hobby) | $30/mo free credits |
| Best for | Teams that want the cleanest SDK and strong microVM isolation for agent code execution. | Python/ML workloads and agents that need GPU inside the sandbox. |
The verdict
Choose E2B for teams that want the cleanest SDK and strong microVM isolation for agent code execution. Choose Modal for Python/ML workloads and agents that need GPU inside the sandbox.
Headline rates rarely equal your bill. Idle time, session length, creation fees and GPU minutes dominate. Model your actual workload in the cost calculator.
FAQ
E2B vs Modal: which is better?
It depends on your priority. E2B leads on both cold start (150ms vs 800ms) and the headline vCPU-hour price. E2B is best for teams that want the cleanest SDK and strong microVM isolation for agent code execution. Modal is best for Python/ML workloads and agents that need GPU inside the sandbox.
Is E2B or Modal cheaper?
E2B is cheaper on the headline vCPU-hour rate ($0.05 vs $0.14). Total cost depends on idle time, session length and creation fees. Model your workload in the cost calculator.
Still choosing between E2B and Modal?
Tell us your workload and we'll point you to the better fit, then connect you with real pricing from the one you pick. No spam.