needaiforthis.Need AI For ThisSubmit
Advertise to thousands of AI tool seekers · Sponsor this banner →

Boxes.dev vs Proxon (2026)

A side-by-side comparison of Boxes.dev and Proxon on pricing, features, and fit, so you can decide which is right for you.

Last updated: July 16, 2026

Quick answer

Boxes.dev and Proxon are both strong choices, but they fit different needs. Choose Boxes.dev if you mainly need running claude code or codex on proprietary codebases without exposing code to third-party servers — its edge is full control over the execution environment for ai coding agents. Choose Proxon if you need auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks — its edge is provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage. Boxes.dev starts at Pricing varies based on compute usage and environment size; Proxon starts at On request.

0
Boxes.dev logo
Boxes.dev

Run powerful AI coding agents in your own cloud environment.

0
Proxon logo
Proxon

Full visibility and control over every AI tool in your organization.

PricingFreemium
PricingPaid
Starts atPricing varies based on compute usage and environment size
Starts atOn request
Free tierLimited free tier available for individual developers
Free tierNo public free tier
RatingNot yet rated
RatingNot yet rated
Best forRunning Claude Code or Codex on proprietary codebases without exposing code to third-party servers
Best forAuditing all AI applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow IT risks
Key strengthFull control over the execution environment for AI coding agents
Key strengthProvides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized AI tool usage
Main drawbackSetup and configuration may require DevOps knowledge for new users
Main drawbackPricing is not publicly available, making it difficult to budget without a sales conversation

Features compared

Boxes.dev

  • Isolated cloud sandbox environments for running AI coding agents
  • Native support for Claude Code and OpenAI Codex
  • On-demand containerized boxes with full terminal and file system access
  • Secure execution with control over data residency and environment configuration

Proxon

  • Automated discovery and inventory of all AI tools across an organization, including shadow AI
  • Ownership assignment and policy binding per AI system
  • Real-time spend tracking and budget attribution for each AI tool
  • Centralized compliance and governance dashboard for IT and security teams

Pros & cons

Boxes.dev

Pros

  • Full control over the execution environment for AI coding agents
  • Improved security and data privacy compared to shared cloud AI IDEs
  • Supports leading AI coding agents including Claude Code and Codex out of the box

Cons

  • Setup and configuration may require DevOps knowledge for new users
  • Costs can scale with compute usage, making it less predictable for heavy workloads

Proxon

Pros

  • Provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized AI tool usage
  • Directly links AI tools to owners, policies, and costs for clear accountability
  • Designed specifically for enterprise security and IT governance workflows

Cons

  • Pricing is not publicly available, making it difficult to budget without a sales conversation
  • May require significant onboarding effort to fully integrate with existing IT infrastructure

The verdict

Choose Boxes.dev if

you mainly need to running claude code or codex on proprietary codebases without exposing code to third-party servers. Its edge: full control over the execution environment for ai coding agents.

Choose Proxon if

you mainly need to auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks. Its edge: provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage.

Frequently asked questions

Is Boxes.dev better than Proxon?

Neither is universally better. Boxes.dev is stronger for running claude code or codex on proprietary codebases without exposing code to third-party servers, with an edge in full control over the execution environment for ai coding agents. Proxon is stronger for auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks, with an edge in provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage. Pick based on your main task.

Which is cheaper, Boxes.dev or Proxon?

Boxes.dev starts at Pricing varies based on compute usage and environment size and Proxon starts at On request. Free tier: Boxes.dev — Limited free tier available for individual developers; Proxon — No public free tier.

What is Boxes.dev best for?

Boxes.dev is best for running claude code or codex on proprietary codebases without exposing code to third-party servers, spinning up reproducible ai development environments for engineering teams, automating code generation and review workflows in a controlled cloud setting.

What is Proxon best for?

Proxon is best for auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks, enforcing ai usage policies and mapping each tool to a responsible owner, tracking and controlling ai-related software spend across business units.

Do Boxes.dev and Proxon have free plans?

Boxes.dev: Limited free tier available for individual developers. Proxon: No public free tier. Check each tool's pricing page for current limits, as plans change.