E2B vs Runloop
| E2B | Runloop | |
|---|---|---|
| Isolation | Firecracker microVM | microVM |
| Cold start | 150ms | 400ms |
| Price / vCPU-hr | $0.05 | $0.108 |
| GPU | No | No |
| Session limit | Up to 24h | Configurable |
| Persistence | Pause/resume with memory state, snapshots | Git-style disk snapshots + branching |
| MCP support | n/a | Yes |
| Free tier | $100 one-time credit (Hobby) | Free basic |
| Best for | Teams that want the cleanest SDK and strong microVM isolation for agent code execution. | Coding-agent builders needing eval harnesses and massive parallelism. |
The verdict
Choose E2B for teams that want the cleanest SDK and strong microVM isolation for agent code execution. Choose Runloop for coding-agent builders needing eval harnesses and massive parallelism.
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 Runloop: which is better?
It depends on your priority. E2B leads on both cold start (150ms vs 400ms) and the headline vCPU-hour price. E2B is best for teams that want the cleanest SDK and strong microVM isolation for agent code execution. Runloop is best for coding-agent builders needing eval harnesses and massive parallelism.
Is E2B or Runloop cheaper?
E2B is cheaper on the headline vCPU-hour rate ($0.05 vs $0.108). Total cost depends on idle time, session length and creation fees. Model your workload in the cost calculator.
Still choosing between E2B and Runloop?
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.