Learn how Cline and Kilo differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these ai coding agents is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
2 days agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v4.1.26License
Apache-2.0Repository
cline/cline
Last 30 days
Last commit
9 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v7.8.27License
MITRepository
kilo-org/kilocode
Both Cline and Kilo have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Cline leads in popularity with 71,455 stars vs 27,908 stars for Kilo. The 156% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Cline has 7,890 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Cline is growing faster, adding 1,382 stars in the last 30 days (+2%) against adding 372 stars for Kilo (+1.4%). Cline is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Cline last updated 2 days ago and Kilo 9 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Python. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Cline uses Ruby while Kilo leverages Next.js, Golang, PHP.
Both projects started around the same time, with Cline beginning 2 years ago and Kilo 2 years ago.
Kilo uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Cline's Apache-2.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in AI Coding Agents.