Learn how Cline and OpenCode 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
4 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v1.19.5License
MITRepository
sst/opencode
OpenCode appears to have several advantages over Cline, particularly in popularity, growth and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
OpenCode significantly outpaces Cline in community adoption with 227,018 stars compared to 71,658 stars on GitHub. This 3.2x difference suggests OpenCode has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, OpenCode has 30,750 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
OpenCode is growing faster, adding 12,717 stars in the last 30 days (+5.9%) against adding 1,239 stars for Cline (+1.8%). OpenCode is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Cline last updated 2 days ago and OpenCode 4 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Cline uses Bash, Python, Ruby while OpenCode leverages Rust, Tauri.
Both projects started around the same time, with Cline beginning 2 years ago and OpenCode 2 years ago.
OpenCode 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.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs