Verdict: these compose rather than compete. OpenCode is the agent and it brings the widest model reach in this comparison, including local models and 75 or more providers through models.dev, plus its own terminal, IDE, and desktop surfaces. T3 Code is the free MIT board that can run OpenCode next to Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, and Grok Build, with a worktree per thread and phone control. Use OpenCode alone if it is your only agent and its desktop app suits you. Use a board once you run more than one agent, or once somebody needs the spend to be legible, which is where Continuum comes in.
- OpenCode is an agent. T3 Code is a surface that drives it. This is composition, not competition.
- OpenCode reaches 75 or more providers through models.dev, including local models. That is the widest reach here.
- OpenCode has its own terminal, IDE, and desktop surfaces, so it does not need a board to be usable.
- A board earns its place at the second concurrent agent, or when you mix OpenCode with Claude Code and Codex.
- OpenCode is not strictly free-only: Zen is a paid curated model set alongside the free open-source agent.
- Neither surface reports what your models cost across providers. That is the gap Continuum fills.
The composition, stated plainly
OpenCode is an open-source agent that helps you write code in your terminal, IDE, or desktop app. Its distinguishing property is model reach: it works with 75 or more providers through models.dev, including local models, and it supports using existing Claude, GPT, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, and ChatGPT accounts. It states that it does not store your code or context data, which is a meaningful claim for regulated environments. There is also a paid tier, Zen, which is a curated set of models tested and benchmarked for coding agents.
T3 Code is a control surface for agent CLIs. It lists OpenCode as one of five supported providers, alongside Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, and Grok Build. It gives each thread a git worktree and branch, shows an inline diff, opens a pull request in one click, and runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android, and the web. It is MIT-licensed and free, and installing it installs no agents.
| Concern | OpenCode owns it | T3 Code owns it |
|---|---|---|
| The agent loop and tool use | Yes | No |
| Model and provider choice | Yes, 75+ providers and local models | Exposes the choice |
| Local model execution | Yes | Only through OpenCode |
| Its own terminal, IDE, and desktop surfaces | Yes | Not applicable |
| Running several agents side by side | One agent per surface | Yes, five providers |
| Worktree and branch per thread | You script it | Yes |
| Phone control of a running session | No | iOS and Android |
| Cost of a session | No | No |
When OpenCode's own surfaces are enough
This is the part most comparison pages skip, so it goes first. OpenCode does not need a board. It ships a terminal interface, an IDE extension, and a desktop app for macOS, Windows, and Linux. If OpenCode is the agent you use and you use one at a time, adding a control surface adds a process and a window and solves a problem you do not have.
Three situations where staying on OpenCode's own surfaces is the right call:
- One agent, one task at a time. The whole argument for a board is concurrency. Without concurrency you are installing a session list with one row in it.
- Local models. If part of the appeal is running models on your own hardware, OpenCode is where that capability lives and its own surfaces expose it most directly.
- Provider breadth is the point. Reaching a very wide model catalogue through one agent is OpenCode's design. A board does not extend that reach; it just puts a window in front of it.
Three situations where a board starts paying:
- You mix agents. OpenCode for the wide model catalogue, Claude Code for one class of work, Codex for another. Running three CLIs in three terminals against one repository is where worktree collisions and lost context begin.
- You want to leave the machine. Remote control from a phone turns a long run into something you check rather than something you sit with.
- Review is the bottleneck. An inline diff and a one-click PR next to the transcript removes the context switch that eats the time delegation was supposed to save.
Comparing them as surfaces
Once you accept that OpenCode is a provider inside T3 Code, the only real comparison left is between OpenCode's desktop app and a board, as places to sit while an agent works.
| Criterion | OpenCode desktop | T3 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Agents available in the window | OpenCode | Five, including OpenCode |
| Model catalogue | 75+ providers, local models | Whatever each provider CLI offers |
| Session isolation | You manage it | Worktree and branch per thread |
| Diff and PR in the window | Editor and git integration | Inline diff, one-click PR |
| Mobile | No | iOS and Android |
| Platforms | macOS, Windows, Linux | Plus iOS, Android, web |
| License | Open source | MIT |
| Price | Free agent, paid Zen models | Free, no paid tier |
Read that as a genuine tie for a single-agent user and a clear T3 Code win for a multi-agent one. Nothing in the right column improves OpenCode's output, because the agent is the same agent either way.
One practical note if you do run OpenCode through a board: the provider will be greyed out until the OpenCode CLI is installed and authenticated on the machine. That is true of every provider in every board in this category and it is the single most common source of "the integration is broken" reports.
The third option: Continuum
Continuum belongs on this page for a specific reason rather than a general one. It runs OpenCode as a provider, the same way T3 Code does, alongside Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and Grok, in isolated worktrees, free on your own keys and subscriptions. So on the surface question it is the same category of answer. What it adds is the row where both products above say no: cost.
That matters more with OpenCode than with any other agent on this list, because OpenCode is the one that can route to dozens of providers. A board that shows you five sessions and no numbers is fine when everything bills to one Claude subscription. It is considerably less fine when the week's work crossed four providers, some prepaid and some metered, and nobody can say what the total was. Continuum keeps live quota gauges per provider, attributes spend by repository, and keeps multiple accounts of the same provider config-isolated. For teams, the organization tier adds model allowlists resolved organization then team then member, weekly caps with one-click approvals, and a ledger showing who ran what, on which model, and what it cost.
The candid caveats, since this page is about two open-source projects: Continuum is not open source, so you cannot fork it, and it does not federate an external identity provider today. If the reason you chose OpenCode and T3 Code was that you can read and own the code, that is a real preference and neither the gauges nor the ledger overrides it.
If you want the fuller picture of running OpenCode inside a workbench rather than on its own, Continuum in OpenCode covers the setup, and T3 Code alternatives puts all the surfaces in one table.
Questions people ask
Is T3 Code an alternative to OpenCode?
No. OpenCode is a coding agent and T3 Code is a control surface that drives agents, with OpenCode listed as one of its five providers. Comparing them directly is a layer error; the real question is which surface you want in front of OpenCode.
Does T3 Code support OpenCode?
Yes, as one of five providers alongside Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, and Grok Build. You install and authenticate the OpenCode CLI yourself. If the provider appears greyed out, a missing or unauthenticated CLI is almost always the cause.
Is OpenCode free?
The agent is open source and free, and it includes free models. There is also a paid tier called Zen, which provides a curated set of models tested and benchmarked for coding agents. Beyond that you pay whichever model providers you route to.
Which supports more models?
OpenCode, by a wide margin. It reaches 75 or more providers through models.dev, including local models. T3 Code offers whatever each of its five provider CLIs offers, and OpenCode is the provider that brings the breadth.
Do I need a board if OpenCode is my only agent?
Probably not. OpenCode has its own terminal, IDE, and desktop surfaces, and a board mainly buys concurrency, worktree isolation, one-click pull requests, and phone control. If you run one agent on one task at a time, those are solutions to problems you do not have yet.
Can I run OpenCode alongside Claude Code in one window?
Yes. T3 Code, Continuum, and Conductor all run several provider CLIs at once in separate worktrees. Each needs its own installed CLI and its own login, and each bills through its own relationship.
Can either tool tell me what my OpenCode usage cost?
No. Neither OpenCode's own surfaces nor T3 Code consolidates spend across providers, and OpenCode's breadth makes that harder rather than easier. Continuum prices sessions locally and groups them by repository, which is why it appears as the third option on this page.
Sources
Every figure above was read from these pages on August 2026. Vendors reprice without notice; if you find a stale number, tell us.