OpenCode and Cursor get compared in feature lists that ignore how teams actually work. This page is a decision memo: what each is for, what only one of them does well, and which should be your default.
OpenCode is a Terminal agent aimed at Provider-neutral terminal use (Free (BYO keys)). Cursor is a AI-native IDE aimed at Daily interactive coding ($20-200/mo).
Quick verdict
Default for most teams reading this angle: OpenCode — multi-provider model routing. Keep Cursor as a specialist when its unique strengths matter.
| OpenCode | Cursor | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Terminal agent | AI-native IDE |
| Pricing | Free (BYO keys) | $20-200/mo |
| Open source | Yes | No |
| Best for | Provider-neutral terminal use | Daily interactive coding |
| SWE-bench (if published) | 88.0% | 91.2% |
Feature matrix
| Capability | OpenCode | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Vision / screenshots | No | No |
| Cron / scheduling | No | No |
| Multi-provider routing | Yes | No |
| Git integration | Yes | Yes |
| Plugins / skills | Yes | Yes |
| Subagents / teams | No | Yes |
| Background tasks | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first | Yes | No |
“Free” agents still cost money
Software free / BYO keys means you pay the model API and the ops tax (config, crashes, no SLA). OpenCode is Free (BYO keys); Cursor is $20-200/mo.
Pick free/OSS when you already hold keys and can staff configuration. Pick a polished subscription when time-to-first-PR matters more than unit economics.
Strengths (from product positioning)
OpenCode
Pros: Multi-provider support; Free and open source; Skill-driven execution; Copilot provider integration.
Cons: Archived / no active development; No vision support; No subagents.
Cursor
Pros: Best editor experience; Fast inline editing; Composer for multi-file; Background agents.
Cons: Closed source; VS Code fork lock-in; Usage-based billing; No cron.
Public adoption signals
Numbers below come from terminalblog’s adoption snapshots (npm/PyPI/GitHub when available). They change; treat them as relative, not marketing.
| Signal | OpenCode | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | 13.4K | — |
| Commits (30d) | 0 | — |
| npm downloads / week | 6.6M | — |
| PyPI downloads / week | — | — |
Full board: leaderboard.
Install / source paths
OpenCode
- Package:
@opencode-ai/sdk(npm) — trynpx -y @opencode-ai/sdkor install per upstream docs - Source: opencode-ai/opencode
Cursor
- Check the project site / GitHub for current install steps (CLI packages change often).
Always confirm install commands on the upstream repo—package names move.
When to choose which
Choose OpenCode when
- Your main job is Open-source alternative with flexible provider choice
- You need multi-provider model routing or local-first execution (which Cursor lacks in our matrix)
- You can live with: Archived / no active development; No vision support
Choose Cursor when
- Your main job is Everyday interactive development and quick edits
- You need subagents / agent teams (which OpenCode lacks in our matrix)
- You can live with: Closed source; VS Code fork lock-in
Use both when
- Interactive coding and long unattended jobs are different lanes on your team
- You are migrating and need a temporary dual stack
- Compliance needs a local-first path even if daily work is commercial
Three jobs to run before you standardize
- Parallel tickets: fan out lint/docs/tests. Prefer Cursor with separate worktrees. Keep OpenCode for a single deep refactor.
- Daily edits: stay in Cursor. Long migrate / CI loop: hand off to OpenCode if it is the stronger terminal agent.
Record: default tool, specialist tool, and forbidden actions (e.g. no prod deploys without a human). Put that in AGENTS.md.
FAQ
Can I run OpenCode and Cursor side by side?
Yes. Use separate worktrees or clones so they never write the same files concurrently.
Which is cheaper?
Both pricing lines are above. Model your spike week (tokens × retries × seats). See the pricing guide.
Does SWE-bench decide this?
OpenCode lists 88.0%. Cursor lists 91.2%. Benchmarks under-predict IDE feel, Windows reliability, and cron ops.
Where next?
Bottom line
Start with OpenCode for this decision (multi-provider model routing). Keep Cursor when you need its unique strengths: subagents / agent teams. Revisit when pricing, models, or your job mix changes.
Related articles
- Open source vs commercial coding agents: operator fit, not ideology
- Claude Code vs Mimo Code: open source vs commercial tradeoffs
- Coding agents vs GitHub Copilot: autocomplete is not an agent
Comparing agents is half the work. aiFiesta can simplify multi-model access while you test workflows.
Operator notes that usually get skipped
Permissions: Agents with shell access can delete work as easily as they write them. Prefer clear approval prompts and deny-by-default for network and production credentials. OpenCode and Cursor both need an explicit policy for force-push, .env reads, and cloud deploys.
Windows vs macOS: Path separators, PowerShell vs bash, and orphaned child processes still decide winners more often than marketing benchmarks. Run the same three jobs on the OS your team ships on before you standardize on OpenCode or Cursor.
Lockfiles: Never run two agents against the same package-lock / pnpm-lock / Cargo.lock concurrently. That failure mode looks like “the agent is dumb” when it is really shared mutable state. Give OpenCode and Cursor separate worktrees.
Memory vs amnesia: OpenCode is positioned for Provider-neutral terminal use; Cursor for Daily interactive coding. Long-running memory or knowledge features only pay off if you invest in what they store; otherwise you pay complexity for zero retention.
Escape hatch: Can you export history, pin versions, and keep working if a model vendor deprecates a SKU next quarter? Multi-provider (Yes vs No) and open source (Yes vs No) matter more here than any single benchmark number.
Team rollout: Pick one default (OpenCode), one specialist, document forbidden actions, and revisit quarterly. Tooling churn is faster than most internal standards documents.