Parallelism, worktrees, and agent workflows
Grok Build is shaped around parallel automation: plan mode, subagents, worktree-aware runs, and best-of-N attempts that can explore multiple paths before you merge a winner. That matters when you want the agent to fan out edits, isolate risky changes in worktrees, and keep a headless JSON path for scripted loops rather than a single interactive session. For xAI-centric teams, that parallel lane is the clearest differentiator versus a classic one-agent CLI.
OpenCode optimizes a different loop: a polished Go + Bubble Tea TUI, vim-like editing, persistent SQLite sessions, and LSP awareness across many languages in one inspectable workspace. It emphasizes session continuity and provider choice over best-of-N worktree orchestration. Choose Grok Build for xAI multi-attempt parallelism; choose OpenCode for a durable, session-centric terminal agent you steer provider by provider.
Provider lock-in vs BYOK / open-source control
Grok Build is an xAI-native commercial CLI. Interactive access rides SuperGrok or X Premium+ subscriptions, and headless use leans on xAI API token billing. That path is coherent if you already standardize on Grok models and want the vendor’s plan, subagent, and worktree surface without assembling a provider matrix. The tradeoff is stack coupling: models, billing, and agent behavior stay tied to xAI’s roadmap.
OpenCode is MIT-licensed with no platform license fee and broad BYOK support—Anthropic, OpenAI, Gemini, Ollama, OpenRouter, and more, plus an optional OpenCode Zen gateway. You keep the TUI and sessions locally while paying providers only for tokens you burn, or running local models at near-zero marginal cost. That open control plane is why OpenCode wins the default recommendation even when overall scores are close.
Privacy and evidence
Privacy is where the existing Score v1 reviews diverge most, and this page cites those dated results rather than inventing a new bake-off. On the Grok Build review (tested 2026-05-28), privacy scored 72. On the OpenCode review (tested 2026-09-05), privacy scored 90. Overall was nearly tied (82 vs 83); DX favored OpenCode (86 vs 80) and speed favored Grok Build (84 vs 81) in those verified reviews.
Treat the May-versus-September window as editorial context, not a side-by-side re-test claim. OpenCode’s higher privacy score aligns with an inspectable MIT client, local session storage, and optional local or self-chosen providers. Grok Build’s lower score reflects a commercial agent path that still depends on xAI’s cloud model and subscription surfaces in that review.
Pricing and ownership
Pricing here is vendor_documented surface, not a new cost trial. Grok Build’s interactive CLI access is included with SuperGrok ($30/mo) or X Premium+ ($40/mo); headless usage is metered through xAI API tokens. You buy a vendor agent workflow plus model access, not a zero-license CLI you can freely retarget.
OpenCode’s software cost is $0 under MIT. You bring your own keys (or Ollama), pay providers for tokens, and optionally use the Zen gateway—without an OpenCode seat fee. Pay xAI for bundled parallel automation, or own the client and meter only model spend. Neither replaces an AI-native IDE such as Cursor; it only frames the terminal-agent line item.
Who should pick which + winner decision guide
Pick OpenCode if you want an open-source terminal agent with strong privacy posture, BYOK model choice, and a session-centric TUI as a daily CLI. It is the better default when control and inspectability matter more than xAI-specific parallelism. Existing reviews score it slightly ahead overall and clearly ahead on privacy and DX, with a newer hands-on window (2026-09-05) than Grok Build (2026-05-28).