Compare Everstack and Modal on deployment model, GPU access, per-second compute pricing, and whether sandboxed execution comes with a gateway and agent runtime.
These overlap less than the search results suggest
Modal is general serverless compute with first-class GPU support. Its Sandboxes and Notebooks bill CPU at $0.00003942 per core per second and memory at $0.00000667 per GiB per second, roughly three times its standard compute rate of $0.0000131 and $0.00000222; since this comparison is about sandboxes, the sandbox rate is the one that applies. A core means a physical core, about 2 vCPU, with a 0.125 core minimum. GPUs run from $0.000164 per second for an Nvidia T4 to $0.001972 for a B300. Everstack is AI infrastructure where sandboxed execution is one layer. They overlap on running untrusted code and diverge everywhere else.
If you need GPUs, use Modal
Everstack does not offer managed GPU compute at all, so this is not a close call. Many teams should run both: Modal for GPU workloads, Everstack for the gateway, agent runtime and sandboxed execution of agent-generated code. Modal's pricing page describes no self-hosting or on-premises option.
Modal's sandbox isolation and network controls are good
Modal states that compute jobs are containerized and virtualized using gVisor, the sandboxing technology developed at Google. Its network controls are worth crediting: block_network=True drops all outbound traffic, outbound_cidr_allowlist restricts egress by CIDR, and Sandboxes are not authorized to access other resources in your Modal workspace. One default to set deliberately: a Sandbox lives five minutes unless you configure a longer lifetime, up to 24 hours.
What surrounds the execution
Debugging an agent that wrote bad code means seeing the prompt, the completion and the execution together. On Everstack those share one trace because the gateway, the runtime and the sandbox are one control plane. On Modal, correlating execution with the model call that produced the code is a join you build and maintain.
