I compared 5 sandbox providers by making a Devin-clone

I work on Ascii Box, our goal is to build the cheapest and best DX sandbox provider for coding agents. So I did a little test to see if whether Claude can easily build integration with popular sandbox providers. I ran Claude Opus 15 times to implement a simple spec for a Devin-clone using popular 5 sandbox provider (3 runs each): E2B, Daytona, Ascii Box, Exe, Islo Here's what I found out: Every single test produced a working GitHub-connected coding agent in its own sandbox. But only 3 of them could building working sandbox pause/resume (to save costs when not running) and sandbox forking. Ascii Box was the only one where both worked in every run. E2B was the fastest and cheapest to build on at $6.38 and 21 minutes but it didn't cover the entire specification given. exe was the most expensive at $19.99 average, with one run hitting $33.32 and 53 minutes. Sandbox costs vary greatly. Run 100 agents for an hour and you pay $3.60 (cheapest) on Ascii Box against $60 (most expensive) on Islo (4 vCPU, 8 GB). It will be even higher without pause/resume. The builder agent took 5-16% of each run to read docs and test API calls or SDK functions to understand how the sandbox works. Full results: Provider Integration Method Spec completeness Avg time Avg cost Avg errors Ascii Box API + SDK 100% 28 min $8.77 3.0 Islo API + SDK 88.9% 29 min $9.44 2.7 Daytona SDK 77.8% 30 min $11.42 3.0 exe API only 77.8% 37 min $19.99 3.7 E2B SDK 72.2% 21 min $6.38 4.3