What each product actually is
OpenCode — open-source coding agent (terminal, IDE, desktop)
OpenCode is an open-source AI coding agent. Per opencode.ai and opencode.ai/docs, it is available as a terminal-based interface, a desktop app, and an IDE extension. The product thesis is a coding-agent loop: project init (AGENTS.md), plan/build modes, multi-file edits, undo/redo, shareable sessions, LSP-enabled assistance, and any LLM provider — including an optional OpenCode Zen gateway of curated models.
Installation paths documented by the vendor include the install script (curl -fsSL https://opencode.ai/install | bash), npm/opencode-ai, Homebrew (anomalyco/tap/opencode), Scoop, Chocolatey, and platform packages. The GitHub repo lives at anomalyco/opencode with an MIT LICENSE on master (confirmed 2026-09-25).
Catalog places OpenCode in terminal CLI tools, AI CLI agents, and AI coding assistants. It is not marked recommended. Live pages: OpenCode, OpenCode Review. Official: opencode.ai.
Cline — open coding agent runtime (editor, terminal, SDK)
Cline is an Apache-2.0 open-source coding agent runtime. Per cline.bot and the live Cline catalog page, you can use it in your editor, your terminal, or embed it via SDK. Product copy emphasizes Plan-then-Act, coordinated multi-file edits, bash execution, .clinerules / skills, MCP and plugins, multi-agent teams/schedules, and connections to Slack/Linear/CI. Human-in-the-loop is the trust thesis: approve every step, or flip auto-approve for autopilot.
Cline for Desktop is also positioned as a native desktop app (no editor required) on the vendor home page. Pricing pages describe free open-source software for individuals with usage-based inference (BYOK or Cline provider) and a separate Enterprise track for SSO, team governance, and JetBrains. LICENSE is Apache-2.0 on the project repository (confirmed via cline/cline LICENSE fetch 2026-09-25).
Catalog places Cline in AI coding assistants and chat-based coding. It is not marked recommended. Live pages: Cline, Cline Review. Official: cline.bot.
Same intent, different shell
Both answer “open agent that edits and executes.” Shared intent is why this comparison exists. OpenCode leans terminal-first coding-agent TUI (plus IDE/desktop) with any-provider convenience and Zen. Cline leans editor-native human-in-the-loop control (plus CLI/SDK/Desktop) with Plan-then-Act approvals. Prefer fit over a one-point overall Score gap — and keep the Score dates visible because they are months apart.
Current surfaces (per vendor pages)
Surfaces below come from live OpenCode and Cline product/docs pages and aicoolies catalog summaries as of 2026-09-25 (Europe/Istanbul). They support fit decisions; they are not a substitute for the locked Score table.
OpenCode
Terminal + IDE + desktop. Docs describe a terminal UI as the core path, plus desktop app and IDE extension. Site copy emphasizes LSP-enabled coding, multi-session agents, share links, GitHub Copilot login, ChatGPT Plus/Pro login, and 75+ providers via Models.dev including local models.
Any provider + Zen. Docs walk /connect for providers and recommend OpenCode Zen as a curated model gateway for newcomers. Software remains free; Zen is optional usage billing for curated models.
Coding-agent loop. Project /init creates AGENTS.md. Plan vs Build modes (Tab toggle), @ file search, /undo /redo, and /share session links are documented on getting-started docs.
Licensing. MIT License — confirmed via LICENSE on anomalyco/opencode master. Software fee $0; model cost is BYOK, Zen usage, or local inference.
Sources: opencode.ai · opencode.ai/docs · github.com/anomalyco/opencode · LICENSE
Cline
Editor + terminal + SDK (+ Desktop). Vendor home page positions one agent runtime across IDE, terminal, and SDK, plus Cline for Desktop. Marketplace / Open VSX distribution and JetBrains (Enterprise track) appear in pricing/product copy.
Plan-then-Act + approvals. Product copy: toggle Plan mode to align on strategy, then Act to execute; approve every step or enable auto-approve. Diffs, checkpoints, and one-click undo are part of the editor trust story.
Rules, MCP, teams. .clinerules and skills teach repo conventions. MCP servers and plugins extend tools. Coordinator / specialist multi-agent teams and cron schedules appear on the home page, along with Slack/Discord/Telegram/Linear and headless CI hooks.
Licensing / billing. Apache-2.0 open source; individual software $0; pay inference via BYOK or Cline provider; Enterprise adds team governance (SSO, RBAC, centralized billing, etc. per cline.bot/pricing).
Sources: cline.bot · cline.bot/pricing · aicoolies.com/tools/cline
Scoreboard (from existing reviews)
Overall: OpenCode (score date 2026-09-05) 83; Cline (score date 2026-03-25) 84.
Speed: OpenCode (score date 2026-09-05) 81; Cline (score date 2026-03-25) 78.
Privacy: OpenCode (score date 2026-09-05) 90; Cline (score date 2026-03-25) 88.
Developer experience: OpenCode (score date 2026-09-05) 86; Cline (score date 2026-03-25) 86.
These figures come from the existing aicoolies reviews for each tool. Prefer fit and current product surfaces; use the table as supporting Score references with the dates above. This page does not claim a new head-to-head re-test or a shared dual session.
Score-age asymmetry: OpenCode’s Score window is 2026-09-05; Cline’s is 2026-03-25. That gap is months wide. Read the table as two dated review artifacts, not as a same-day bake-off. The fresher OpenCode window is a fact about evidence age — not a claim that Cline was re-tested or that OpenCode “wins freshness” as a product feature.
Overall is a near tie (83 vs 84). Cline leads overall by one point. OpenCode leads privacy (90 vs 88) and edges speed (81 vs 78). DX is tied (86). That split matches the product-shape story: Cline’s editor HITL default with a narrow overall lead; OpenCode’s terminal coding-agent feel with a fresher review window and a slight privacy edge on these Scores.
Workflow — terminal coding-agent loop vs editor human-in-the-loop
Daily loop
Choose OpenCode when the daily loop is a coding agent inside a project shell: TUI (or IDE extension / desktop), AGENTS.md project memory, plan/build iteration, undo/share, and any-provider models (or Zen). DX 86 (score date 2026-09-05) supports that coding-agent feel on the published review.
Choose Cline when the daily loop is editor-native agentic work with visible tool calls and graduated approvals. Privacy 88 and DX 86 (score date 2026-03-25) support the trust/control story: you stay in charge of what the agent does to the tree unless you explicitly loosen that. Auto-approve is an option, not the default thesis. CLI/SDK/Desktop paths exist when you leave the editor.
What “control” means on each product
OpenCode’s control story is open runtime + transparent coding-agent loop (plan/build, undo/share, provider choice, privacy-first site claims). Cline’s control story is step-level human-in-the-loop approvals inside the editor (and related surfaces), with Plan-then-Act as the named workflow.
Licensing & billing
OpenCode — $0 MIT + BYOK / optional Zen
OpenCode is MIT open source at anomalyco/opencode. Software is $0; you pay providers directly, use Zen usage billing if you choose that gateway, or run local models. Site FAQ language emphasizes free software with model costs elsewhere — confirm opencode.ai if finance needs a one-pager.
Cline — $0 Apache-2.0 + BYOK / optional Enterprise
Cline is Apache-2.0 open source. Per cline.bot/pricing, the open-source extension is free for individual developers; you pay AI inference on a usage basis (BYOK or Cline provider) with no seat subscription required for the OSS track. Enterprise adds team collaboration and security features (SSO, RBAC, centralized billing, JetBrains, etc.).
Commercial fork
Both are OSS + BYOK cost shapes at the individual layer. The fork is shell and control model (terminal coding-agent TUI vs editor HITL approvals), plus MIT vs Apache-2.0 and optional Zen vs optional Cline Enterprise — not “which one charges for the binary.” A near-tie overall (84 vs 83) means packaging and workflow fit matter more than chasing one Score point.
Who should pick which
Pick Cline if you want:
An open editor-native agent with explicit step approvals (Plan-then-Act; auto-approve optional)
Editor + terminal + SDK (+ Desktop) runtime flexibility and .clinerules / MCP / plugins
Apache-2.0 software at $0 with optional Enterprise governance
The narrow overall lead on these Scores (84, score date 2026-03-25)
A trust/control-first HITL buyer story (privacy 88, DX 86 on that review)
Pick OpenCode if you want:
An open coding agent across terminal, IDE extension, and desktop with a polished TUI loop
Project init / AGENTS.md, plan/build modes, undo/share, LSP-aware coding loops
Any-provider convenience (and optional Zen gateway) with MIT licensing
The fresher Score window (83, score date 2026-09-05) and privacy 90 on that review
Tied DX (86) with a slight speed edge (81 vs 78) on these Scores
Editorial winner: cline — fit-first editor HITL default in a near-tie overall (84 vs 83). State OpenCode’s terminal TUI niche and fresher Score window explicitly so the page does not read like a landslide.
How this fits the OpenCode / Cline neighborhood
On aicoolies, both tools sit on the broader AI coding / CLI-agent shelf next to Goose, Amp, Claude Code, Codex, and Aider. Live Cline alternatives (2026-09-25) explicitly include OpenCode. OpenCode’s alternatives set does not yet list Cline.
Related live comparisons: goose-vs-opencode, amp-vs-cline, opencode-vs-codex, opencode-vs-aider, cline-vs-cursor, claude-code-vs-cline, cline-vs-kilo-code. Use those for Goose local-MCP, Amp commercial, or other editor/CLI corners. Use this page when the fork is specifically OpenCode’s terminal coding agent vs Cline’s editor HITL agent.
Hubs: /categories/ai-cli-agents, /categories/terminal-cli-tools, /categories/ai-coding-assistants, /categories/chat-based-coding.
Decision guide — five practical forks
1. Do you need step-level approvals inside the editor as the default trust model? If yes — Plan-then-Act with explicit approve unless auto-approve — Cline is the natural fit. OpenCode can still plan/build; the HITL step-approval thesis is Cline’s.
2. Do you need a terminal-first coding-agent TUI (with IDE/desktop optional)? If the job is “live in a coding-agent TUI with AGENTS.md, undo/share, and any provider,” OpenCode is the natural fit. Cline can still run CLI/Desktop; the UX thesis differs.
3. Do you need MIT vs Apache-2.0? Both are OSS. OpenCode’s MIT is a familiar permissive coding-tool license. Cline’s Apache-2.0 may matter for org open-source policy (patent grant language, NOTICE practices). Confirm LICENSE files linked above for compliance review.
4. Is Score evidence age part of your risk review? OpenCode Score dated 2026-09-05; Cline Score dated 2026-03-25. If your process requires recent review artifacts, OpenCode’s window is newer — that is evidence hygiene, not a product feature claim, and it does not mean Cline was re-tested for this page.
5. Is DX the deciding Score niche? DX is tied (86 / 86). Do not invent a DX landslide. Decide on shell (editor HITL vs terminal TUI) instead.
What “good” looks like for each buyer
Cline buyer profile
A strong Cline buyer wants agentic edits that stay visible and approvable inside VS Code (or related editor/Desktop paths). They care about Plan-then-Act, diffs/checkpoints, BYOK flexibility, and optionally Enterprise governance later. They often arrive from marketplace installs or cline.bot, and they shortlist Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, Amp, Aider, and OpenCode as peers — Cline’s live alternatives page already lists OpenCode.
OpenCode buyer profile
A strong OpenCode buyer wants a coding agent that feels native in the terminal (and optionally IDE/desktop). They care about project memory (AGENTS.md), plan/build iteration, undo/share, and connecting whatever model subscription or API keys they already have — including Zen if they want a curated gateway. They often arrive from the OpenCode site or npm/Homebrew install path, and they shortlist Goose, Claude Code, Codex, Aider, Amp, and Crush as peers.
Shared intent, divergent constraints
Both answer “open agent that edits and runs.” Shared intent is why the comparison exists. Divergent constraints — terminal coding-agent TUI vs editor human-in-the-loop — are why the winner is fit-first rather than “always pick the higher overall Score.”
Feature surfaces that matter in practice
Context and project conventions
OpenCode’s documented AGENTS.md init path is a practical convention for project-scoped coding agents. Cline’s .clinerules / skills emphasize repo-shipped standards and architecture conventions inside the editor agent. Pick the convention that matches how your team stores agent instructions.
Tools and extensibility
Cline’s MCP, plugins, hooks, and multi-agent teams/schedules are first-class on the vendor home page. OpenCode’s strength is the coding-agent interaction model (plan/build, file search, undo/share, LSP) plus broad provider connectivity and optional Zen. For the latest extension and provider lists, see the vendor pages in Sources.
Surfaces: TUI vs editor HITL
OpenCode: terminal + IDE extension + desktop (docs/site). Cline: editor + terminal + SDK + Desktop (site/catalog). Both cover more than a single shell, but the default “home surface” differs — OpenCode’s docs lead with the terminal coding agent; Cline’s trust thesis leads with editor approvals.
Models
Both are model-agnostic rather than single-vendor locked. OpenCode documents any-provider setup, Copilot/ChatGPT login paths, local models, and optional Zen. Cline documents Claude/GPT/Gemini, local Ollama/LM Studio, OpenAI-compatible endpoints, BYOK, and optional Cline provider. Neither Score table is a model-quality league table.
Cost and procurement notes
OpenCode cost shape. Software $0 (MIT). Budget provider tokens, optional Zen usage, or local inference.
Cline cost shape. Software $0 (Apache-2.0) for individuals. Budget inference (BYOK or Cline provider). Enterprise is a separate governance/support track — confirm cline.bot/pricing.
Total cost of ownership is not overall Score. A near-tie overall (84 vs 83) means shell and control-model fit matter more than chasing one Score point — especially with asymmetric Score ages.
Privacy and data-path framing
On published aicoolies Scores, OpenCode leads privacy slightly (90 vs Cline 88). Both are strong. Practical questions:
Where do prompts and repository context go by default for your chosen provider?
Can you keep inference local (Ollama / LM Studio) or on an approved gateway?
Can security review the agent runtime source (MIT vs Apache-2.0)?
Do IDE plugins, MCP servers, or Desktop apps introduce additional data paths?
Does step approval (Cline) or client-side architecture claims change your threat model in practice?
OpenCode answers with open coding-agent software and privacy-first site claims, scoring 90 privacy (score date 2026-09-05). Cline answers with open runtime + HITL approvals and BYOK flexibility, scoring 88 privacy (score date 2026-03-25). Neither Score is a certificate that every deployment is air-gapped.
Speed and DX — what the leads mean
DX is tied (86 vs 86). OpenCode edges speed (81 vs 78) on the locked Score table. In buyer language: neither review wins a DX landslide; OpenCode’s scored loop was slightly faster.
Cline’s lower speed Score is not a claim that Cline is slow in every repo. It marks a different optimization: editor HITL visibility/control vs terminal coding-agent throughput feel. If your rubric weights step approvals above TUI speed, Cline can still win the purchase.
Overall 84 vs 83 is a near tie. Fit-first still applies — and remember the Score dates differ by months.
Migration and coexistence patterns
From OpenCode to Cline. Teams sometimes want stricter editor HITL approvals and Plan-then-Act visibility after prototyping with a terminal coding agent. Migration is workflow and extension install, not a Score transfer.
From Cline to OpenCode. Teams sometimes want a terminal-first TUI / AGENTS.md loop (or fresher review evidence) after starting in the editor agent. Again: workflow choice.
Coexistence. Some orgs keep Cline for editor-native PR work with approvals and OpenCode for terminal/CI-adjacent coding-agent sessions. That can be coherent. The editorial winner on this page remains cline for the default editor HITL recommendation; coexistence is a team topology choice, not a winner flip.
When the near-tie scoreboard still helps
Overall 84 vs 83 is not a mandate. It still helps in three narrow ways:
HITL default clarity. Cline’s one-point overall lead pairs with the editor approval thesis without inventing a wipeout.
Privacy / freshness clarity. OpenCode 90 privacy on a 2026-09-05 window vs Cline 88 on 2026-03-25 — disclose ages; do not pretend the dates match.
Anti-landslide framing. A one-point overall gap should never be sold as a wipeout. Fit-first cline is a default recommendation for editor HITL buyers, not a claim that OpenCode buyers are wrong.
DX is tied. Ignore DX as a deciding axis on these Scores unless your own hands-on session says otherwise.
Practical evaluation checklist
Before you standardize on either tool, run the same short checklist on a real repository:
Install path. Can every engineer install the editor extension / Desktop (Cline) or the TUI / IDE / desktop path (OpenCode) without a ticket maze?
Provider path. Does your approved model path work on day one — API key, Copilot/ChatGPT login, Zen, Cline provider, or local Ollama/LM Studio?
Control path. Do you need step approvals by default (Cline strength) or a fast plan/build TUI loop first (OpenCode strength)?
Review path. Can security read the LICENSE and skim the GitHub org you will depend on (anomalyco/opencode vs cline/cline)?
Evidence path. Are you comfortable citing Score dates 2026-09-05 (OpenCode) and 2026-03-25 (Cline) as separate artifacts — not as a same-day dual test?
Use aicoolies Scores as a second opinion with the published dates — not as a substitute for that checklist.
FAQ-style clarifications
Is OpenCode still an SST project? The live GitHub repository as of 2026-09-25 is anomalyco/opencode. Older sst/opencode URLs redirect there.
Is Cline only a VS Code extension? Cline’s vendor positioning is one agent runtime for editor, terminal, and SDK, plus Desktop. The HITL editor story remains the trust thesis; CLI/SDK/Desktop expand the shell.
Does the overall Score mean Cline always wins? No. Cline is the fit-first winner in a near tie (84 vs 83). OpenCode remains the better pick when terminal coding-agent TUI fit (and/or the fresher Score window) matters more.
Can both use Claude or GPT models? Yes — both are model-agnostic via BYOK / providers. That does not turn either into Claude Code.
Are the Scores from the same day? No. OpenCode Score dated 2026-09-05; Cline Score dated 2026-03-25. Disclose that asymmetry; do not invent a re-test.
