A Developer's Guide to AI Coding Assistants: Claude vs. OpenCode vs. Cursor

The landscape of agentic engineering is rich with a broad variety of tools designed to assist with coding through AI. Among the most popular today are Claude Code, OpenCode, Cursor, and Visual Studio Code with GitHub Copilot. Other notable mentions include Google Antigravity, Codex, and Gemini CLI. Having used these tools extensively to build real-world projects and internal applications, I’ve developed a clear perspective on their capabilities and differences. This article offers an overview of these tools, their unique features, and a subjective take on their performance.

Two Camps: CLI vs. IDE

The first major distinction divides these tools into two camps: command-line interfaces (CLIs) or terminal user interfaces (TUIs), and integrated development environments (IDEs).

The Command Line Warriors: Claude Code & OpenCode

Claude Code and OpenCode are primarily designed to be run from the terminal. While OpenCode does feature a web mode that starts a local server, its default and most common usage is within the TUI. You interact with them directly from your command line inside a project folder.

It’s important to note that both tools offer IDE integrations. These can show code change previews or allow for some level of interaction within your editor. However, their core design is optimized for the command line. This approach offers developers flexibility. By not having to build and maintain a full-fledged IDE, they can focus entirely on creating powerful agents that generate and edit code effectively.

The Integrated Experience: Cursor & VS Code with GitHub Copilot

On the other side, we have tools that are either full IDEs or deeply integrated into them. The downside of the CLI-first approach becomes apparent here. IDEs offer more than just AI chat interfaces. Cursor, for instance, provides amazing auto-completion that allows you to fly through a codebase by hitting tab to apply edits within and even across files. GitHub Copilot’s auto-completion is also quite good, though arguably less powerful than Cursor’s.

These features are absent in the standalone CLI tools. Claude Code and OpenCode are agentic tools where you interact with a chat to trigger an AI. While Cursor and VS Code with Copilot also have this chat functionality, it complements their other features, like auto-completion.

The Power Source: Supported AI Models

A crucial question for any AI tool is which models it supports.

• Claude Code: Unsurprisingly, this tool primarily uses Anthropic’s models: Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus. The integration is excellent, and these models perform exceptionally well within their native harness. Recently, Claude Code announced integration with Olama, a tool for running open-source AI models locally. This opens the door to using Claude Code for free (minus electricity costs), but with a significant caveat. Current open models are generally not as capable as proprietary ones like Opus and often require substantial hardware resources (specifically GPU RAM) to run effectively.

• OpenCode, Cursor, & GitHub Copilot: These tools offer a much wider selection of models from various providers. You can find a long list of choices in OpenCode by simply typing models. There was a time you could use your Claude Code Max subscription to access Anthropic models in OpenCode, but Anthropic has since restricted this. However, you can still use a GitHub Copilot subscription within OpenCode, which is a great way to leverage a subscription you might already have. This flexibility is a major advantage, giving you access to powerful coding models like GPT-5.2 Codex, which is not available in Claude Code.

Business Models and Open Source

The financial structures behind these tools are also worth considering.

• OpenCode is a standout because it’s open-source. This leads to transparent, community-driven development and rapid innovation. Despite being open-source, OpenCode offers a subscription called OpenCode Black, which provides flat-fee usage tiers.
• Claude Code, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot all require paid subscriptions. These companies are either heavily VC-funded or backed by giants like Microsoft. As a result, their subscription plans are often heavily subsidized, potentially offering more usage for your money compared to a self-funded project like OpenCode.

Feature Parity and Configuration Chaos

When a valuable feature appears in one tool, the others are quick to catch up. Features like sub-agents and agent skills are now supported across the board, though the terminology might differ.

• In Claude Code, you have “modes.”
• In OpenCode, the term “agents” refers to a combination of modes (like plan and edit) and outsourced workers.

The most frustrating part of using these tools is the lack of standardization in configuration.

• Memory/Rules Files: All tools support files for setting general rules or sharing learnings.
  • Claude Code uses claude.md and a rules directory.
  • OpenCode supports both agents.md (an attempted open standard) and claude.md.
  • Cursor supports agents.md and its own Cursor rules.
  • GitHub Copilot supports agents.md and its own rules.

The incompatibility is annoying. agents.md should be a shared standard, but Claude Code opts for its own claude.md.

• Agent Skills: The story is similar for agent skills, which must be stored in different folders depending on the tool:
  • OpenCode: opencode skills or Claude Skills
  • Claude Code: Claude Skills
  • Cursor: Cursor Skills, Claude Skills, or Codex Skills
  • VS Code/GitHub Copilot: .GitHub Skills or Claude Skills

While Claude Skills has broad support, the ecosystem is still evolving, with each provider pushing its own configuration. This will likely become more standardized over time, but for now, it requires careful attention to documentation.

All these tools also support MCP servers for browser access (e.g., via Playwright) and have web fetch capabilities, allowing them to read documentation or other online content.

The Verdict: Which Tool Should You Use?

After extensive use, the boring but honest answer is that all these tools are decent. There isn’t one that is horribly bad. The quality of the output depends far more on your prompt, the context you provide, and your skill in leveraging features like agents and skills.

Here’s a summary of my subjective experience:

• Claude Code works exceptionally well with Anthropic models, especially Opus. The tight integration is palpable, and it often produces high-quality results.
• OpenCode, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot offer crucial flexibility. The ability to switch to other models, like the excellent GPT-5.2 Codex for complex tasks, is a significant advantage.
• IDEs (Cursor, VS Code) are preferable for tasks where you anticipate making manual edits or want a detailed, change-by-change review of the AI’s work.

Ultimately, there is no single “best” tool. I find myself switching between them based on the task. If I want to use a specific model not available in Claude Code, I’ll turn to OpenCode. If I prefer a more hands-on, IDE-based workflow with a clear diff view, I’ll use Cursor or VS Code.

Agentic engineering is not about passive “live coding.” It’s an active process where your skill as a developer in guiding the AI and reviewing its solutions is paramount. All the tools discussed in this article can do a good job, provided you use them effectively.