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

Boxes.dev vs Respan Gateway (2026)

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

Last updated: June 15, 2026

Quick answer

Boxes.dev and Respan Gateway 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 Respan Gateway if you need managing multi-provider llm traffic for production ai applications — its edge is combines routing, observability, and evals in a single platform reducing tool sprawl. Boxes.dev starts at Pricing varies based on compute usage and environment size; Respan Gateway starts at around $49/month based on usage volume.

0
Boxes.dev logo
Boxes.dev

Run powerful AI coding agents in your own cloud environment.

0
Respan Gateway logo
Respan Gateway

Route, observe, and evaluate every AI call in one place.

PricingFreemium
PricingFreemium
Starts atPricing varies based on compute usage and environment size
Starts ataround $49/month based on usage volume
Free tierLimited free tier available for individual developers
Free tierFree tier available with limited requests and basic observability features
RatingNot yet rated
RatingNot yet rated
Best forRunning Claude Code or Codex on proprietary codebases without exposing code to third-party servers
Best forManaging multi-provider LLM traffic for production AI applications
Key strengthFull control over the execution environment for AI coding agents
Key strengthCombines routing, observability, and evals in a single platform reducing tool sprawl
Main drawbackSetup and configuration may require DevOps knowledge for new users
Main drawbackRelatively new platform so documentation and community resources are still maturing

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

Respan Gateway

  • Unified LLM routing across multiple AI providers with a single API endpoint
  • Built-in observability including request tracing, latency monitoring, and logging
  • Automated evaluations to benchmark and compare model outputs at scale
  • Fallback and retry logic to handle provider outages and reduce downtime

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

Respan Gateway

Pros

  • Combines routing, observability, and evals in a single platform reducing tool sprawl
  • Provider-agnostic design makes it easy to swap or mix LLM providers
  • Saves engineering time by replacing custom middleware with ready-built infrastructure

Cons

  • Relatively new platform so documentation and community resources are still maturing
  • Advanced evaluation customization may require technical setup not suited for non-developers

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 Respan Gateway if

you mainly need to managing multi-provider llm traffic for production ai applications. Its edge: combines routing, observability, and evals in a single platform reducing tool sprawl.

Frequently asked questions

Is Boxes.dev better than Respan Gateway?

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. Respan Gateway is stronger for managing multi-provider llm traffic for production ai applications, with an edge in combines routing, observability, and evals in a single platform reducing tool sprawl. Pick based on your main task.

Which is cheaper, Boxes.dev or Respan Gateway?

Boxes.dev starts at Pricing varies based on compute usage and environment size and Respan Gateway starts at around $49/month based on usage volume. Free tier: Boxes.dev — Limited free tier available for individual developers; Respan Gateway — Free tier available with limited requests and basic observability features.

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 Respan Gateway best for?

Respan Gateway is best for managing multi-provider llm traffic for production ai applications, running automated evals to compare model quality across openai and anthropic, monitoring api costs and latency to optimize ai infrastructure spending.

Do Boxes.dev and Respan Gateway have free plans?

Boxes.dev: Limited free tier available for individual developers. Respan Gateway: Free tier available with limited requests and basic observability features. Check each tool's pricing page for current limits, as plans change.