# e2b vs wraft

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

| | e2b | wraft |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 76/100 ✓ | 44/100 |
| Rank in category | #15 of 209 in AI Agents | #35 of 46 in Document Management |
| GitHub stars | 14 606 ✓ | 167 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +648 ✓ | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 76 ✓ | 3 |
| Latest release | @e2b/code-interpreter-python@2.11.6 · 28 Oct 2026 ✓ | v0.6.7 · 25 Sept 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Elixir |

## Which one should you pick?

e2b scores 76/100 against 44/100 for wraft, so it is the safer default.

e2b ships more often: 76 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for wraft.

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

e2b is growing faster right now (+648 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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