APort vs E2B
E2B isolates code; OAP decides whether the agent was allowed to request that code execution under policy.
E2B’s sandboxes reduce blast radius for arbitrary code and tool use—an important layer cited in agent security surveys.
Sandboxing does not replace recipient allowlists, spending limits, or MCP tool allowlists. OAP encodes those semantics and fails closed when context is missing.
| Comparison point | OAP / APort | E2B |
|---|---|---|
| Primary control | Semantic authorization (who may do what, with what limits). | Kernel-isolated execution environment for agent code. |
| Startup / perf | Milliseconds policy evaluation; no VM boot. | ~150 ms-class sandbox startup (per cited literature). |
| Business policy | Currency limits, merchant allowlists, audit codes, MCP scopes. | Infrastructure limits (CPU, network egress, FS) inside VM. |
| Complements | Run OAP hooks outside the sandbox, E2B inside for code-heavy tools. | Pair with OAP to keep policy decisions out of the guest. |
Use E2B when
- You execute untrusted code from agents frequently
- You need strong isolation for arbitrary Python/Node workloads
- You want hosted sandboxes without building your own Firecracker farm
Use OAP / APort when
- You must enforce org policy before spawning sandboxes or calling APIs
- You need signed decisions independent of infrastructure vendor
- You use MCP and shell tools outside a single sandbox boundary
Why teams choose OAP / APort
Policy outside the VM
Decisions are made before resources are allocated, reducing cost and abuse.
Works for non-code tools
Payments, messaging, and MCP calls may never touch a sandbox—OAP still applies.
Portable across hosts
Same passport works whether the tool runs locally, in E2B, or on-prem.