# OpenCode vs Claude Code: 2026 CLI Comparison

By Amir Teymoori

---

My verdict up front: Claude Code is the better single tool if you already pay Anthropic and want the sharpest agent with the least setup. OpenCode wins if you care about model choice, want an MIT-licensed harness you actually control, or need to route cheap work to cheap models.

I run both every day. Not because I can't make up my mind, but because they solve slightly different problems, and after a year of switching I stopped pretending one replaces the other.

Here's the honest comparison, including the parts that irritate me about each.

## What You're Actually Choosing Between

OpenCode is an [open source coding agent](https://opencode.ai/) that lives in your terminal. The repo sits at roughly 193,000 GitHub stars under an MIT license, which tells you how many developers wanted a vendor-neutral option.

Config goes in `opencode.json`, either in your project root or at `~/.config/opencode/opencode.json`. Point it at the schema URL `https://opencode.ai/config.json` and your editor autocompletes everything. That one file holds your model, agents, MCP servers, tool permissions, LSP settings, and custom commands.

I documented my own three-agent config in my [OpenCode multi-agent setup post](https://amirteymoori.com/opencode-multi-agent-setup-specialized-ai-coding-agents/), which is still the most-read thing on this blog by a wide margin.

Claude Code is Anthropic's agent, and it runs Claude models only. You get the CLI, a desktop app for Mac and Windows, a web version at claude.ai/code, and extensions for VS Code and JetBrains. Subagents live in `.claude/agents/`, skills in `.claude/skills/`, and it supports hooks plus MCP servers.

Both tools do the same core loop: read the repo, plan, edit files, run commands, verify. Everything around that loop is where they diverge.

## Side by Side

| | OpenCode | Claude Code |
|---|---|---|
| Models supported | Any provider: Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI, local Ollama, plus OpenCode Zen's curated gateway | Claude only (Fable 5, Opus 5, Sonnet 5, Haiku 4.5) |
| Price | Free tool, you pay providers directly; Zen is pay-per-token | Pro $20/mo, Max 5x $100/mo, Max 20x $200/mo, or API rates |
| Extensibility | `opencode.json`, MCP, custom commands, themes, keybinds, LSP | Skills, hooks, MCP, slash commands, output styles |
| Multi-agent | Agents defined per-model in config, plan and build modes | Subagents in `.claude/agents/` with isolated context |
| IDE support | Terminal TUI, desktop app, IDE extension | CLI, desktop app, web, VS Code, JetBrains |
| Open source | Yes, MIT | No |
| Best for | Provider flexibility, cost control, self-hosted models | Deepest Claude integration, least configuration |

Prices are August 2026 list rates. Check both vendors before committing.

## What Each One Gets Right

OpenCode's real advantage is per-agent model routing. My researcher agent runs a cheap fast model, my reviewer runs something expensive and careful, and my main coder sits in the middle. When a provider raises prices or ships a better model, I change one string in a JSON file.

Local models matter here too. If your employer won't let code leave the building, OpenCode plus Ollama is a genuine answer, and Claude Code has none.

Claude Code's advantage is depth of integration with the models it ships. `/fast` gives you quicker output without dropping to a weaker model, and `/effort` lets you dial reasoning from low up through max. Skills are the feature I'd miss most: a folder of markdown instructions that load only when relevant, so your context stays clean.

Subagents are the other one. I broke down how I structure mine in my [Claude Code subagents and skills guide](https://amirteymoori.com/claude-code-subagents-skills-multi-agent-setup/), and the isolated-context model is more disciplined than what I get from OpenCode's agent blocks.

Multi-surface access is underrated. I start tasks in the laptop CLI and check them from the web more often than expected.

## What Annoys Me About Both

OpenCode makes you the integrator. Model quality varies enormously across providers, and a config that worked beautifully in January can produce sloppy diffs in March because a provider quietly changed something. You'll spend real evenings tuning temperatures and tool permissions.

The TUI has rough edges too: rendering glitches on long outputs, occasional session weirdness, provider auth that needs re-doing at bad moments. Free software moving fast, and it shows.

Claude Code's problem is the obvious one: you're locked to Claude. No routing a trivial rename to a $0.20 model, no local fallback, no hedge if Anthropic's pricing shifts. On Pro you'll hit usage limits during a heavy afternoon, and the jump to Max is a real $100.

Cost stings on the API side too. Fable 5 runs $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output, so an unattended loop burns cash fast. My [Claude Code CLI guide](https://amirteymoori.com/how-to-use-claude-code-cli-like-a-pro/) covers the habits that keep those bills sane.

Neither reads your mind, either. Both need a solid `AGENTS.md` or `CLAUDE.md` to stop repeating mistakes.

## Who Should Pick Which

Pick Claude Code if you write code professionally, your budget covers $20 to $200 a month, and you'd rather ship than tinker. It's the least-friction path to a strong agent, and the subscription pricing makes costs predictable.

Choose OpenCode if any of these apply: you're on a tight budget and want free or near-free models, your code can't leave your network, you already pay for OpenAI or Google credits, or you enjoy owning your setup. The MIT license means you can read the source when something behaves oddly, which I've actually needed.

Students and hobbyists should start with OpenCode plus a cheap model. It costs nothing and you'll learn how agent harnesses work.

Teams with compliance needs land on different sides. Data residency pushes toward OpenCode with self-hosted models, while audit trails and enterprise support push toward Anthropic.

Run both if you can. I keep Claude Code for hard architectural work and OpenCode for bulk refactors on cheaper models, and that split has saved me more than either tool alone. If you're still comparing editors rather than terminals, my [Cursor vs Windsurf vs Claude Code breakdown](https://amirteymoori.com/cursor-vs-windsurf-vs-claude-code-which-ai-coding-tool-should-you-choose-in-2025/) covers that side.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### Is OpenCode really free?

The tool itself is free and MIT licensed. You still pay for inference, either directly to a provider with your own API key, through OpenCode Zen's pay-per-token gateway, or nothing at all if you run local models on your own hardware. Zen has offered free tiers on some models during beta, though I wouldn't build a workflow around that lasting.

### Can I use Claude models inside OpenCode?

Yes, and plenty of people do exactly that. Add your Anthropic API key and point the config at a Claude model. You'll pay API rates rather than subscription rates, which is usually more expensive for heavy daily use, so check the math against a Pro or Max plan before switching.

### Which one writes better code?

That depends on the model, not the harness. Running Opus 5 through either tool produces similar quality. Claude Code has an edge on task orchestration because Anthropic tunes the harness and the model together, but the gap is smaller than the marketing on either side suggests.

### Do I need to know JSON to use OpenCode?

Only lightly. The defaults work out of the box, and you can run it without touching config at all. Editing `opencode.json` becomes worthwhile once you want specialized agents or per-task model routing, and the schema autocomplete does most of the remembering for you.

### Should I switch if Claude Code already works for me?

Probably not, unless cost or model lock-in is causing you actual pain. Switching costs a weekend of setup and some lost muscle memory. My earlier writeup on [what makes Claude Code different](https://amirteymoori.com/claude-code-the-ai-powered-cli-thats-changing-how-developers-work/) still holds up, and if that workflow fits your brain, stay put.