Skip to main content
AI Choice Engine

Agentic harness comparison

Claude Code vs OpenCode

Compared on where each one runs, which editors it supports, how autonomous it is, and how it bills — the four things that actually decide Claude Code vs OpenCode. Rankings reflect fit and trade-offs, not a single universal winner; partner links, when present, do not replace that methodology.

Details last verified October 2, 2026

Anthropic

Claude Code

Terminal, IDE plugins, desktop, and browser · Agentic

vs

OpenCode

OpenCode

Terminal, desktop beta, and IDE extensions · Agentic

AI harness specification comparison
SpecificationClaude CodeOpenCode
VendorAnthropicOpenCode
Runs inTerminal, IDE plugins, desktop, and browserTerminal, desktop beta, and IDE extensions
Editor supportTerminal CLI, VS Code / Cursor, JetBrains, Desktop app, claude.ai/codeAny (editor-agnostic), VS Code / Cursor / Windsurf / Zed extensions, Desktop app (beta)
AutonomyAgenticAgentic
Pricing modelHybridUsage-based
Requires changing editorNoNo

Dates refer to the linked source’s publication or capture unless it explicitly states when the benchmark was measured. Values we could not confirm are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.

AgenticHybrid

Claude Code

Anthropic's agentic coding tool runs in the terminal, supported IDEs, a desktop app and the browser. Configuration and permissions vary by surface and organisation. Subscription sign-in shares eligible Claude plan usage; Anthropic Console/API and third-party provider billing are separate paths.

Best for

  • Multi-file refactors
  • Migrations
  • Delegated engineering tasks

Watch out

Claude Code is included with Pro, Max, Team and Enterprise; Free does not include it. Web prices: Pro $20/month or $200 billed yearly; Max 5x $100/month and Max 20x $200/month; Team Standard $25/seat/month or $20 with annual billing, Premium $125 or $100 respectively; Enterprise $20/seat/month with annual billing plus API-rate usage (https://claude.com/pricing). API credentials can bill separately from subscription usage. Model selection depends on account, user/org settings, provider and client version: default clears an override, while Anthropic API opus and sonnet resolve to Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5. Sonnet 5.5 requires v2.1.284+, Opus 5.5 v2.1.280+. Third-party provider aliases can resolve to older versions. Fable normally resolves to Fable 5.1, except Claude apps gateway sessions use Fable 5; neither is an account-type default. On Pro, Fable uses usage credits; on Max it can use up to 50% of the regular weekly allowance before additional Fable work requires usage credits. Interactive credit consent is not a guarantee for automation: non-interactive -p requests can bill credits without asking. Five-hour and weekly limits depend on plan/model; check the account usage page (https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config; https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-max-plan). Native Windows supports shell tools, but Claude's sandbox is available on macOS, Linux and WSL2, not native Windows or WSL1. It is off by default and covers shell execution, not every file tool, MCP server or hook (https://code.claude.com/docs/en/sandboxing).

AgenticUsage-based

OpenCode

MIT-licensed coding client with terminal, desktop beta and supported editor workflows, explicit provider connections and configurable Build/Plan agents. The free client can use BYOK/local providers, pay-as-you-go Zen or optional Go subscriptions.

Best for

  • Terminal-first open-source workflows
  • Multi-provider model flexibility
  • Teams that want Plan mode before edits

Watch out

Zen is pay-as-you-go; Go costs $10/month and Go Plus $40, with the same model token rates and different per-model dollar allowances. Paid-model ceilings use 20% in five hours, 50% weekly and 100% monthly; temporary free models have separately stated terms. Optional Use balance falls back to paid Zen credits after Go limits. Current menus include MiMo V2.6 Flash/Pro, Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor and LongCat 2.5 Preview alongside other changing models (https://opencode.ai/docs/go/). Go's privacy table lists 30-day retention for Grok 4.7/4.6 and GPT-6/5.6 Luna, training for Muse Contributor, and a DeepSeek ZDR agreement currently valid through October 31, renewed monthly. Zen separately lists 30-day OpenAI/Anthropic retention and free/trial exceptions that can log data or use it for improvement; it is not universal ZDR (https://opencode.ai/docs/zen/). Build is permissive by default. The README describes Plan as denying edits, while current agent docs describe edit/bash as ask; inspect or explicitly configure permissions instead of assuming the Plan label prevents writes. --auto approves requests unless explicitly denied. No current numeric agent benchmark is asserted (https://opencode.ai/docs/agents/; https://opencode.ai/docs/permissions/; https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode).

Common questions

Claude Code vs OpenCode

Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.

Do I have to change editor to use Claude Code or OpenCode?
Neither does. Claude Code runs in Terminal CLI, VS Code / Cursor, JetBrains, Desktop app, claude.ai/code and OpenCode runs in the terminal, desktop beta, and ide extensions alongside any editor, so people keep the setup they already have.
How are Claude Code and OpenCode priced?
Claude Code is hybrid and OpenCode is usage-based. The headline seat or plan price is not the heavy-agent bill — included credits, shared pools, and overages dominate once you loop agents hard. Estimate cost per successful task and set spend caps. Cost tracks how much you delegate, so set a spending limit before rollout rather than after the first surprise.
Is Claude Code or OpenCode better for large refactors?
Both carry our agentic classification. That label does not establish equal refactoring quality; compare correctness, tool reliability, review time and cost on representative tasks.
Will my project rules transfer between Claude Code and OpenCode?
Usually not automatically. Cursor rules, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and extension-specific configs are different conventions. Keep one source of truth in the repository (commonly AGENTS.md) and copy or link into each tool’s native format so switching does not wipe months of project teaching.
Does Claude Code require a Max plan?
No. Claude Pro includes Claude Code with a shared usage pool alongside Claude chat. Max raises limits; Free Claude.ai chat does not include Claude Code. An ANTHROPIC_API_KEY can bill Console/API instead of the subscription pool.
Does OpenCode train on or store my code?
It depends on the path — treat BYOK, OpenCode Go/Zen, and local endpoints as separate rows in a privacy matrix. The open-source client with BYOK or a local model sends prompts only to the provider you choose. OpenCode Zen paid models often claim ZDR/no training, but free or trial Zen endpoints may use data to improve — avoid confidential repos on those free endpoints. OpenCode Go is a separate hosted path with its own retention terms; confirm the live docs before regulated code.
Do coding agents replace code review?
No. Agents can draft patches faster, but they do not remove the need for human review of plans, tool calls, permissions, diffs, tests, and rollback paths. Treat autonomy as a reason for stronger review, not less — see the coding assistant rollout guide at /ai-harnesses/guides/coding-assistant-rollout-guide.
Should we harden MCP before rolling out a coding agent?
Yes for any agent that can install MCP servers or run tools. Maintain a short allowlist, review each server’s folder and network access before install, fail closed on unknown tools, and log tool calls. .cursorignore and similar rules do not block MCP or shell access once a command is approved.
Is a “free” open-source agent actually free to run?
The client can be $0, but inference usually is not. BYOK paths bill your provider for every retry, large context window, and tool loop; hosted passes and credits are quota-based, not unlimited. Budget tokens and operator review time together — a cheap seat with heavy agent use can exceed a bundled subscription.

Next step

Which one fits

Autonomy and editor constraints decide this far more reliably than a benchmark score.

If most of your week is small, frequent edits, an assistive workflow beats delegation and an agentic harness sits idle while billing. If you regularly hand over work spanning many files, the reverse is true.

Where one tool requires changing editor and the other does not, that difference usually outweighs any capability gap across a team — rollouts fail on adoption, not capability.

“Open vendor” links use a first-party redirect for click counting. They are not commissionable partner placements unless a programme is active for that vendor. Affiliate disclosure.