We, like otto, see the need for tools like these in today&#x27;s development climate. While both tools are very similar and accomplish nearly the same thing, the main difference is under the hood:<p>1. Nanobox embraces Docker and the philosophy of containers. Every component and process of your app is housed inside of an isolated container. The VM only runs the Docker deamon and the Nanobox deamon. In contrast, otto leverages Docker, but is built more to conform to Hashicorp&#x27;s existing toolset.<p>2. Extensibility in Nanobox is accomplished through engines, which are inspired by and very similar to Heroku buildpacks. As noted above, engines run inside of isolated containers inside the VM. Otto&#x27;s extensibility is accomplished through Go plugins that run on the host machine.<p>3. Nanobox caters to the dev workflow. We&#x27;ll automatically suspend and save the VM state when it&#x27;s not in use. Nanobox doesn&#x27;t require the VM to always be running.