Anbox Cloud Reviews

Our main use case for Anbox Cloud is running Android applications in the cloud for scalable testing and remote access. We use it to spin up Android instances on demand, validate app behavior across versions, and support streaming sessions without needing many physical devices. It helps us to reduce dependencies, automate validation, and scale Android environments faster for QA and development workflows.

One unexpected benefit was how useful Anbox Cloud became for reproducibility. Instead of relying on physical devices with different states, we could launch clean Android instances and reproduce issues in a more controlled way. Another unique use is using it for remote demos and validation, where stakeholders could access the Android app without installing anything locally. This helped reduce setup friction and made testing faster across distributed teams.

The best feature of Anbox Cloud is its scalable Android instances, as you can launch multiple Android environments on demand without depending on physical devices. We have the cloud-based app streamer, so users can access Android apps remotely through their browser or a streaming session. Every session can start from a controlled image, which is very useful for QA and debugging. The QA automation potential fits well with CI/CD pipelines for testing Android apps at scale. For me, the biggest value is the scalability plus reproducibility, which makes Android testing and validation much easier to standardize. Another important feature is the centralized management of Android images and sessions. It makes it easier to control versions, update environments, and keep testing consistent across teams. I would also highlight the low-friction access for users, as they do not need a physical Android device or complex setup. They can open a session remotely and interact with the app almost immediately.

Anbox Cloud has a positive impact because it reduced our dependency on physical Android devices and made testing environments easier to scale. It helped us improve QA efficiency, reproduce issues faster, and provide remote team members with consistent Android sessions. It also reduced setup time for demos, validation, and exploratory testing because users could access Android apps directly from the cloud.

A few measurable outcomes are that we reduced Android environment setup time from hours to minutes because sessions could be launched on demand. We also reduced dependency on shared physical devices, which helped avoid waiting time between QA developers and stakeholders for testing issue reproduction. This tool became faster because we could start from clean, consistent Android instances instead of troubleshooting device-specific issues. Overall, it improved QA turnaround time and made remote validation much easier, specifically for distributed teams.

Anbox Cloud can be improved mainly in ease of setup and operational simplicity. The platform is very powerful, but the initial configuration can feel complex, especially around infrastructure, networking, images, GPU support, and scaling. Better guided setup, clearer troubleshooting messages, and more production-ready templates would help a lot. I would also improve the monitoring and reporting experience, especially around session performance, resource usage, latency, and failures. For QA and operation teams, having clearer dashboards and logs would make it easier to detect problems quickly. Overall, it works well, but it could be more user-friendly for teams that do not have Linux, LXC, or cloud infrastructure experience.

I would add that the documentation could be more scenario-based. The official docs cover the components, but real production examples would help more, specifically for scaling, GPU configuration, networking, image lifecycle, and troubleshooting failed sessions. Also, integrations could be stronger. Better out-of-the-box examples for CI/CD pipelines, monitoring tools, observability dashboards, and automated QA workflows would make adoption easier. I also would appreciate clearer guidance around cost optimization because when you scale Android instances in the cloud, resource planning becomes very important.

I have been using Anbox Cloud for around two years.

Anbox Cloud is very stable for us.

Scalability is one of Anbox Cloud's strongest points. It scales well because Android instances can be launched on demand instead of depending on a fixed pool of physical devices. That made it easier to support parallel QA sessions, remote validation, and multiple user testing at the same time. The only limitation is that scalability depends heavily on the infrastructure behind it, especially AWS compute capacity, GPU availability, networking, and session management. The platform scales well, but it needs proper resource planning and monitoring to avoid performance issues or unnecessary costs.

Our customer support experience was good, especially when the issue was clearly related to the deployment configuration or platform behavior. The support team was helpful, but some cases required detailed logs and infrastructure context before getting a clear answer. Since Anbox Cloud involves Ubuntu containers, networking, GPU, and cloud resources, troubleshooting can be complex. Overall, I would rate support positively, but I would appreciate faster guidance for production issues and more related user troubleshooting documentation.

Before Anbox Cloud, we mainly relied on physical Android devices and some traditional cloud device farm options like BrowserStack, but we switched because Anbox Cloud gave us more control over the Android environment, better scalability for launching sessions on demand, and more consistency for reproducible testing. Physical devices were harder to manage remotely, and device farms were useful but less flexible when we needed customized Android images and controlled infrastructure.

Anbox Cloud can be improved mainly in ease of setup and operational simplicity. The platform is very powerful, but the initial configuration can feel complex, especially around infrastructure, networking, images, GPU support, and scaling. Better guided setup, clearer troubleshooting messages, and more production-ready templates would help a lot.

We saw a positive return on investment mainly through reduced device dependency, faster setup, and better reproducibility. The clearest metrics were that we reduced Android environment setup time from hours to minutes because QA and developers could launch cloud sessions on demand. We reduced waiting time for shared physical devices, especially when multiple people needed to validate the same build. We did not necessarily reduce headcount, but we improved team capacity because the same QA team could execute more validations without needing extra devices or manual setup. From a cost perspective, the biggest saving was avoiding the need to constantly buy, maintain, replace, and coordinate multiple physical Android devices across distributed teams.

Our experience with pricing was that it was reasonable for the value, but it requires careful planning. The main cost came from AWS compute resources, storage, networking, and scaling Android sessions. If sessions are always running, costs can grow quickly, so we had to manage capacity, shut down unused instances, and monitor usage. For setup costs, the initial effort was higher because Anbox Cloud requires good knowledge of Ubuntu, cloud infrastructure, networking, and scaling configurations. The licensing was manageable, but it is not something I would treat as plug and play. You need to evaluate the license together with infrastructure costs to understand the real cost of ownership.

We evaluated a few alternatives before choosing Anbox Cloud: BrowserStack for cloud-based real device testing, AWS Device Farm for Android app testing at scale, Firebase Test Lab, and the usual physical Android device labs. We chose Anbox Cloud because it gave us more control over the Android environment, better flexibility with cloud infrastructure, and stronger scalability for launching Android sessions on demand.

For governance and security, I would say that Anbox Cloud is strong from an infrastructure and isolation perspective, but its AI capabilities are not the main focus of the platform. The security value comes more from running Android workloads in controlled, isolated cloud environments, managing images centrally, and limiting access through infrastructure policies. That helps with governance because teams can control which Android versions, apps, and sessions are available. For AI-related use cases, I would still recommend adding clearer access controls, audit logging, data rotation policies, and monitoring around user sessions because sensitive data can pass through those environments. Overall, I would rate governance and security as solid, but it depends on how well the organization configures the surrounding cloud infrastructure.

My advice for others looking into using Anbox Cloud is to plan the infrastructure before adopting it, because it is a powerful solution, but it is not just install and use. You need to think about AWS capacity, networking, GPU needs, session limits, storage, monitoring, and cost control from the beginning. I would also recommend starting with a small pilot first to validate your Android app, measure latency, test scaling, and confirm how many sessions your team really needs. For QA teams, the biggest value comes when you standardize images, automate session creation, and connect it with CI/CD. That is where Anbox Cloud becomes much more valuable than only replacing physical devices.

Overall, Anbox Cloud is a strong platform when you need scalable Android environments in the cloud. The biggest value is not only replacing physical devices, but creating a more controlled, repeatable, and scalable Android workflow for QA, demos, and remote validation. Teams should treat it as an infrastructure platform, not just a testing tool. When it is planned properly with monitoring, cost control, automation, and security policies, it can deliver a lot of value. I would rate this solution an 8 out of 10.

Our primary use case for Anbox Cloud revolves around running high-density Android environments directly in the cloud, instead of managing a physical lab or mobile devices or desktop emulators for Android. Anbox Cloud allows us to spin up the Android containers on demand, streamlining our testing process and helping us get validation for the performance testing and functionality testing during our environments such as SIT and UAT. It also helps us ensure that we are able to see our performance application execution and the performance is high enough to get these things done in the environments for our customers.

Anbox Cloud is helping us provide a cloud environment that allows the functionality to work and be tested directly in the cloud instead of needing physical devices in hand for Android application testing. This is the major use case why we are using Anbox Cloud, as it removes the usage of physical devices and the needs for them, helping us reduce infrastructure and hardware costs by 80 to 90%.

There are multiple features of Anbox Cloud that I personally love, including native ARM execution, which is critical since the vast majority of mobile devices are ARM-based, allowing our workflows to run natively on the ARM cloud and providing an incredible, accurate, low latency representation of real-world performance. Another feature I love is the acceleration in the SIT and UAT environments, helping us provision hundreds of identical, reproducible Android environments, meaning our testing cycles are drastically shorter. Additionally, the web-based UI is highly accessible, enabling our QA teams to perform interactive UAT testing without needing deep technical or coding experience. I also love the CI/CD integration, which seamlessly integrates into our pipelines, allowing us to spin up instances for regression testing and tear them down when finished, ensuring that non-iterative workflows are highly reliable. Furthermore, the support is dependent on them, and Android Automotive OS (AOS) infotainment system features massively advantage our industry.

The web-based UI of Anbox Cloud helps us test everything on a web application instead of installing heavy cloud-based software into the system. Sign-ups are easy, and the QA teams can perform iterative UAT without needing advanced or expert knowledge. Regarding CI/CD integration, it seamlessly plugs into the automated pipeline, spinning up instances for regression testing and making sure that deployments and integrations are faster, with continuous and automated deployments.

Regarding improvements for Anbox Cloud, I see it as a perfectly executed solution that has not faced challenges as far as I know, but if I had to suggest a specific improvement, I would say that AI integrations could be better.

I have been working in my current field for more than 15 years.

Anbox Cloud is a 100% stable solution, and its scalability is really good, definitely a stable and scalable one.

Customer support is really great; I would rate it 10 out of 10 since we have interacted with them, and that was clean and helpful.

We did not choose any other options, but I remember a few names as alternatives to Anbox Cloud while choosing solutions for the organization, including Genymotion SaaS, BrowserStack, App Live, Device Farm, Corellium, and Aviatrix.

The deployment of Anbox Cloud in our environment is really straightforward since it is directly via an Amazon Machine Image on AWS Marketplace. It was completed with just a few commands that initialized the plans, and the web-based graphical interface completely abstracts the underlying complexities of the container orchestration, providing a clean and manageable sandbox environment almost immediately.

The configuration process for Anbox Cloud is straightforward, and we did not face any challenges; it was really brilliant.

The procurement process was very easy, and we did not face any challenges; it is a good solution for sure.

Talking about the ROI from Anbox Cloud, we have seen multiple strong ROIs; it has basically eliminated the hardware lab. By moving Android execution to Anbox Cloud, we have eliminated the need to purchase, maintain, and secure racks for physical mobiles, saving us at least 65 to 70% in cost. Additionally, it has reduced compute costs by 20 to 30%, as we utilize AWS cloud with Anbox Cloud's instances instead of traditional x86 instances, lowering our hourly compute cost by 28 to 30% while simultaneously delivering better than native application stability. Anbox Cloud has helped us deliver faster to the market, automating testing and significantly improving testing cycles and time by 60 to 70%, resulting in faster time to market and increased customer satisfaction, which is up by at least 70 to 80%. These are some great ROIs that we have achieved.

We have seen a lot of positive impacts from Anbox Cloud as customer satisfaction levels are up. The clients we work for are really happy because we deliver earlier, leading to them giving us other projects, which is a great ROI for the company.

The metering and billing experience is really great, as we have chosen a pay-as-you-go hourly model, which gives us an edge since we were previously paying hefty money and not getting enough solution out of it. Anbox Cloud helps us ensure that we get the full benefit and pay only for what we use.

The licensing through AWS Marketplace is very flexible; as I mentioned, we are on a pay-as-you-go hourly model, which is excellent for testing in SIT and UAT phases, giving us predictable and long-term usage. While Anbox Cloud offers an annual contract, we prefer the hourly pay-as-you-go model, which is best for us. The software is very reasonable and automates the SIT cycles, enabling faster product delivery.

We did not choose any other options, but I remember a few names as alternatives to Anbox Cloud while choosing solutions for the organization, including Genymotion SaaS, BrowserStack, App Live, Device Farm, Corellium, and Aviatrix.

My main use case for Anbox Cloud is for developments and critical enterprise development requirements. I use Anbox Cloud for Android automation on demand across the public cloud, which includes cloud gaming and app streaming requirements. We utilize browsers to run the cloud gaming and app streaming while using automation testing pipelines.

The best feature Anbox Cloud offers in my experience is its hardware independence. It does not require physical device farms, which reduces logistics and maintenance costs. Additionally, high density, GPU acceleration, and developer speed stand out as important features to me.

Anbox Cloud positively impacts my organization by enabling us to run over 100 Android instances on a single server and maximizing infrastructure efficiencies. The outcomes include improvements in developer speed, with instant provisioning of environments for faster iteration and bug reproduction.

To improve Anbox Cloud, we can enhance the speed and flexibility of the platform. We can focus on optimizing allocations and CPU scheduling, as we are experiencing load distribution issues and experimenting with CPU planning that locks specific cores to instances, all while utilizing the default scheduler's mode for resource allocation improvements.

For improvements related to the requirements, we can implement more CPU scheduling, fine-tune resource allocations, optimize our infrastructure, and adjust the Android execution model for specific workloads.

I have been using Anbox Cloud for two years and six months.

My advice for others looking into using Anbox Cloud is that they can really use this model to improve their productivity, business efficiencies, and enhance their products' accuracy and consistency. For higher reliability, I recommend deploying on supported high-performance hardware instead of trying to squeeze performance out of nested virtualization on low-tier VMs. I would rate this product an 8.

We are implementing Vicarious, a vulnerability management tool, and have integrations with Kubernetes using APIs. Also, we use Canonical to support access to technology documents, articles, and to open issues.

We have enjoyed the same experience as public cloud with a digital transformation since 2016, leading to a necessity to improve our environment using infrastructure as code. 

It helps run Android and system containers using Ubuntu Pro. The product made it easier to insert new components and hosts in our private cloud, allowing us to update the number of hosts in our environment.

In Brazil, it is difficult to find technical professionals with OpenStack or this technology skills. The solution is complex to administrate, and the initial setup requires significant experience.

We have been using the solution since 2021.

It is perfect, not even a problem until now. We don't have any problems with stopping production or anything else.

It's simple to scale. We insert new components and hosts in the private cloud and can update the number of hosts in our environment.

We have an excellent experience with support from Canonical. They provide great support, and our experience with the support team has been excellent.

Positive

We initially used OpenStack from VMware for our setup and had a simple deploy with them.

The deploy with VIO from VMware was very simple, but the support wasn't set. With Canonical, we have excellent support and a good experience. However, the initial setup requires significant experience.

We have four people administrating the solution who are infrastructure analysts with strong Linux experience.

We have three clouds: one production, one for production, and one lab. We have a license supporting a specific number of hosts and update it each year, making the contract simple with them. It is not expensive.

Overall, Canonical is rated ten out of ten. We don't have significant issues, and we have a great group of professionals, which makes administration easy.