opencode vs GitHub Copilot
Both are alternatives to Cursor. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as GitHub Copilot vs opencode — same comparison, one verdict.
opencode
The terminal-native agent with the largest open-source community in the category.
opencode (MIT) is a coding agent that runs in your terminal, with a desktop app in beta and IDE extensions alongside it. It is deliberately provider-agnostic — 75+ providers via the AI SDK and Models.dev, including Ollama, LM Studio and any OpenAI-compatible local endpoint — and it ships two built-in agents: a full-access `build` agent and a read-only `plan` agent for exploring a codebase before anything is allowed to change it. It is now the most-starred project in this space at roughly 191k GitHub stars, maintained by Anomaly after the repository moved from `sst/opencode` to `anomalyco/opencode`. The optional opencode Zen gateway sells curated, benchmarked models pay-as-you-go and includes some free ones; using your own provider keys stays free.
GitHub Copilot
The polished commercial option at half the price — and for many readers the honest answer.
If what actually prompted the comparison is price rather than openness, GitHub Copilot is the straightforward answer: Pro is $10/month against Cursor Pro's $20, and there is a real free tier with 2,000 code completions a month for individual developers who don't have Copilot through an organisation. It does inline completion, chat, agent mode and a CLI, and it installs into the IDE you already use rather than asking you to adopt a different editor. Worth knowing precisely: the Copilot Chat client for VS Code is MIT-licensed and its code now lives in the main VS Code repository, but the service and models behind it are proprietary and hosted. There is no self-host path and no local-model option — that's the trade, stated plainly, and it is the right trade for plenty of people.
Side by side
| opencode | GitHub Copilot | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty Score | 93 | 28 |
| Open source | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Local-first | Yes | No |
| License | MIT | Proprietary (hosted service; MIT-licensed VS Code chat client) |
| Pricing | Free and open source (MIT) — you pay your own provider. The optional opencode Zen gateway is pay-as-you-go, with some free models; your own API keys cost nothing extra. | Free tier (2,000 completions/month); Pro $10/mo; Pro+ $39/mo; Max $100/mo; Business $19/seat/mo; Enterprise $39/seat/mo. Verified on GitHub's own plans documentation 2026-07-29. |
opencode edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.
opencode
Strengths
- +MIT and provider-agnostic by design — 75+ providers, plus Ollama, LM Studio or any OpenAI-compatible local endpoint
- +The read-only `plan` agent lets you scope work before the agent can touch a file
- +Terminal-first, so it works over SSH on a server or a modest machine
- +The largest community in the category and daily commits
Trade-offs
- −Terminal-first is a genuine adjustment coming from an editor-integrated agent; the desktop app is still beta
- −No inline autocomplete — a different tool for a different job than Cursor's Tab
- −Ownership moved from SST to Anomaly; the MIT licence means no practical risk, but it's worth knowing
- −Large configuration surface (providers, models, agents) — more to learn than picking from a dropdown
GitHub Copilot
Strengths
- +Half the price of a Cursor Pro seat, with a genuinely free tier to test on
- +Nothing to run or configure — it installs into the IDE you already use
- +Keeps inline Tab-style completion, which none of the open agents above provide
- +Very low switching cost — your code is just files, so uninstalling leaves nothing to migrate
Trade-offs
- −Fully hosted and proprietary: no self-hosting, no local models, no offline use
- −Chat, agent and CLI usage draws on monthly credits; only completions are unlimited on paid plans
- −You are choosing a Microsoft/GitHub-operated service, with whatever that means for your data policy
- −The Sovereignty Score of 28 reflects a closed hosted service — a transparency lens, not a verdict on quality
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-29. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.