Claude Code vs OpenCode: Why I Use OpenCode Daily

Both Claude Code and OpenCode are terminal agents that read a codebase, edit files and run commands. I use both. OpenCode is what I open every morning, and Claude Code is what I reach for when the work suits it.

This post explains the differences that decided it for me: model choice, where the configuration lives, extensibility and cost. They are not benchmark scores, and they will not settle the choice for everyone.

My position, stated once: I use OpenCode daily because I can pick the model per task and keep my agent configuration as files I own, and because that setup travels to any client environment without assuming one vendor's subscription. Claude Code is good, and I still use it.

The two tools in one line each

OpenCode is an open source coding agent. It runs as a terminal TUI, a desktop app and an IDE extension, and it connects to whichever model provider you point it at.

Claude Code is Anthropic's coding agent. It runs in the terminal, IDE, desktop, web and mobile, and it is tuned around Claude models.

Where they actually differ

I compared them on the dimensions that change how I work, not on raw model quality, which moves every few weeks and depends on your provider.

Two things in that table need a footnote. First, opening up model choice is not free of strings: Anthropic prohibits using a Claude Pro or Max subscription inside a third-party tool like OpenCode, so there you pay per token or use a subscription the provider allows, such as ChatGPT Plus, GitHub Copilot or GitLab Duo. Second, Claude Code is no longer strictly single-vendor. Its terminal, VS Code and JetBrains surfaces support third-party platforms like Bedrock and Vertex, and it will read an AGENTS.md if you already have one. The difference is one of defaults: Claude Code starts inside Anthropic's world, OpenCode starts with no world at all.

Why I use OpenCode day to day

One agent, many models

The single biggest reason is that model choice belongs to me. I run a cheap, fast model for renaming and small refactors, then switch the same session to a stronger one for architecture or a tricky bug. When a client has a contract that keeps code on their own infrastructure, I point OpenCode at a local model instead of sending anything out. No other tool here lets me make that decision per task, in one interface.

The configuration is files in the repo

My setup lives in files I can read, review and version: an AGENTS.md that describes the project, an opencode.json for the runtime, markdown agents, and plugins. Nothing is hidden behind a hosted dashboard. When I hand a project to a client, the same configuration ships with it, and their team can read exactly what the agent was told to do.

Extensibility I can shape

OpenCode exposes a server, an SDK, plugins and custom tools. I use them to wire the agent into the rest of the workflow: a custom tool that calls a project script, a plugin that adds a guardrail, a server session driven from somewhere other than my keyboard. That is how the tool bends to a client's stack instead of the other way around.

Cost I can see

Because OpenCode bills through whichever provider I connect, my spending is the provider's spending. I route the cheap work to a cheap model, watch token usage in the provider's dashboard, and use a subscription I already pay for. There is no platform bill and no plan tier gating a feature.

The source is open

OpenCode is MIT licensed. I can read how a tool call is sandboxed, pin a version when a client needs stability, and file a real bug instead of a support ticket. When something breaks at 6pm before a demo, I want to see the code.

What Claude Code does better

The decision is not one-sided.

Anthropic builds Claude Code and its models together, so the harness and the model arrive in step, and a new Claude capability tends to show up in a working agent loop here first. The surfaces are further along too: I can start a long task in the terminal, hand it to the desktop app to review diffs, kick work off from my phone, or schedule a routine that keeps running with my laptop closed. For background and scheduled work, OpenCode's server mode and CI integrations are a smaller story.

Team and enterprise controls are ahead as well: managed settings, SSO, centralized billing and a support path, the things a company asks for before it lets an agent touch its repositories.

How I decide between them

My rule is simple. OpenCode is the default, because model freedom and owned configuration are worth more to me on most days. I switch to Claude Code when the work is Claude-shaped and benefits from being close to the model, when I need the cloud, mobile or background surfaces, or when the team I am working with has already standardized on it.

In client work the environment often decides before I do. If their code cannot leave their infrastructure, a local model through OpenCode is the answer. If their security team already runs Anthropic through Bedrock with a managed policy, Claude Code is the smoother path.

Wrapping Up

Neither tool is the wrong choice, and the trade-off cuts both ways.

OpenCode hands you more freedom and, with it, more to own: your provider keys, your cost tracking, your configuration upkeep. If you want a single managed bill, a support contract and one vendor to call, Claude Code is simpler and often the better fit for a team.

I land on OpenCode every day because the freedom is the part I actually use: model choice per task, configuration in files I own, and a setup that travels to a client unchanged. If you want to try it, start with the OpenCode documentation and read the provider setup before you commit to a billing model.