(no personal opinions of either, links might be useful)
I think that OpenCode is nice, their CLI version is enjoyable and their desktop/web version is okay:
I also quite like driving OpenCode through something like Kepler / Paseo and tools like that (with those I can still use my Anthropic Condition by Claude Code being treated similarly - as something that gets tasks dispatched to it, while the GUI I see is Kepler / Paseo).
On the desktop side, ZCode was surprisingly usable for something that came out of nowhere (I wasn't aware of it at all before trying out the GLM Coding Plan): https://zcode.z.ai/en
(however, it's much faster to use Plan Mode to build a plan of what it will do, and then execute the plan in Build Mode. you can also have the AI make a script that will be executed deterministically)
And this is coming from someone that's not particularly a big fan of Theo. T3 Code should get more recognition; people aren't just aware of it yet.
I only found this yesterday, and it inspired me to start testing out OpenCode.
That said Claude Code is perfectly fine. I just prefer the integrated experience of using Cursors since I already use VSCode, but I still mostly use Claude Code because of their Max/Fable plan.
this is the integration branch for https://opencode.ai/v2 . it has been for months. it's where the Effect-based refactor has been landing.
I’ve stopped using it completely now.
It works nicely in the browsers on my tablet and phone, too.
On exe.dev you can ask it to customize itself, and it will automatically rebase your customizations when upgrading to a new release.
Anyways, please try mine!
i like to challenge my assumptions and try new tools
that's a very compelling use case, thank you
CC works but for me it felt like increasingly they have zero incentive to make it a great experience. You hear folks like Boris talk about spinning up thousands of agents over night and agents chatting back and forth in GitHub issues and while I think it’s great from figuring out what the future looks like I don’t think it represents the reality of ROI today. So the folks building the tool are so disconnected I am simply not sure it’s a great experience anymore.
Is that the main concern though, cost?
That being said, I had to nope out of a similar thing from GPT 5.6 today, so it appears to be a US frontier lab issue. Claude is particularly bad though, as it produces far too much code even when I tell it not to, unlike GPT (and Kimi) which at least listen to me a little better.
More generally, I want a usable human review experience, and Claude code doesn't deliver that for me.
IMO part of it is that the underlying LLMs have gotten better enough that harnesses feel better even if they haven’t changed. I have a toy harness that barely implements the features you’d expect and it works surprisingly well. Like there’s literally nothing clever, it calls tools and that’s about it, and it still mostly does the right thing.
Edit: lol, I don't think ACP is even actively developed anymore. It seems to have been merged into another seemingly pointless standard with an even worse name, A2A. [0]