opencode vs OpenHands
Both are alternatives to Cursor. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as OpenHands 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.
OpenHands
Self-hosted, sandboxed coding agents — the whole stack runs on infrastructure you control.
OpenHands (MIT, formerly OpenDevin) is the option for people whose actual requirement is "this has to run on infrastructure I control." It is a self-hosted control centre for coding agents: a browser-based Agent Canvas plus a backend server you start locally or on your own VM, with agents working inside a sandboxed environment that has its own shell, filesystem and browser. Agents can edit code, run commands, call APIs and browse the web — real engineering tasks rather than completions. The project sells a managed OpenHands Cloud and licenses a self-hosted enterprise edition, but the core is MIT and self-hosting costs nothing beyond your own model usage. At 82.5k stars it is the most established self-hosted agent platform available.
Side by side
| opencode | OpenHands | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty Score | 93 | 91 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| 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 and open source (MIT) to self-host — you pay only your model provider. Managed OpenHands Cloud and a licensed enterprise self-host are the paid tiers. |
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
OpenHands
Strengths
- +Genuinely self-hosted: server, sandbox and workspace all sit on your own infrastructure
- +Sandboxed execution — the agent gets a container, not unrestricted access to your laptop
- +Browser UI suits longer autonomous runs and reviewing what an agent actually did
- +MIT-licensed, 82.5k stars, committed to daily
Trade-offs
- −The heaviest setup here — Docker and real RAM, not a two-minute install
- −Long autonomous runs consume a lot of tokens; set a budget before you let one loose
- −Multi-user, RBAC and the richer integrations live in the paid Cloud and enterprise tiers
- −Not an in-editor experience — you leave your IDE to drive it, and there's no inline completion
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-29. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.