compare
reviewed
microsandbox gives you a sandbox runtime ready to embed in an application. Firecracker gives you the virtual machine monitor for building that platform yourself. both are Apache-2.0 and isolate workloads in microVMs. [1][24][26]
microsandbox supplies image pulls, commands, files, snapshots, credentials, and network policy through its SDKs. Firecracker exposes VM configuration and lifecycle; you supply the guest kernel, root filesystem, and surrounding services. [1][25]
Firecracker runs on Linux with KVM. microsandbox also runs on macOS and Windows, and offers a separate hosted cloud backend in private beta. [1][20][26]
01
microsandbox uses libkrun’s embeddable virtualization library. Firecracker exposes its own VMM API. [1][3] the practical difference is the software around that layer: microsandbox already provides the application-facing runtime and language SDKs. [25]
02
Firecracker captures memory and VM state, while its integrating platform manages the backing disks and snapshot files. [2] microsandbox packages local disk snapshots, full checkpoints, and branching as CLI and SDK operations. compatible runtime and resource settings are required for full restores. [21]
microsandbox cloud currently supports disk snapshots from stopped persistent sandboxes. full memory checkpoints and branches remain local. [20][21]
common questions
no. it uses libkrun as its embeddable virtualization layer. both approaches create microVMs with separate guest kernels. [1][3][24]
Firecracker requires Linux with KVM. microsandbox runs locally on macOS, Linux, and Windows. [1][26]
yes. it saves VM state and memory; you manage the associated disk files and snapshot lifecycle. microsandbox exposes the combined workflow through its SDKs and CLI. [2][21]
primary sources
put the boundary on your own machine before you choose anything else.
run it locally