# e2b vs Pulse

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | e2b | Pulse |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 76/100 ✓ | 71/100 |
| Rank in category | #14 of 209 in AI Agents | #2 of 19 in Infrastructure Monitoring |
| GitHub stars | 14 593 ✓ | 6 970 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +655 ✓ | +229 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 73 ✓ | 43 |
| Latest release | @e2b/cli@2.23.0 · 28 Oct 2026 ✓ | helm-chart-6.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy ✓ |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Python | Go |

## Which one should you pick?

e2b scores 76/100 against 71/100 for Pulse, so it is the safer default.

e2b ships more often: 73 stable releases in the past year, against 43 for Pulse.

If you want the quickest setup, Pulse is easier to run; e2b needs more configuration.

e2b is growing faster right now (+655 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [e2b](https://selfhost.directory/project/e2b) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/e2b.md)
- [Pulse](https://selfhost.directory/project/pulse) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/pulse.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/e2b-vs-pulse