goose vs opencode
General-purpose local AI agent in Rust — native desktop app, full CLI and embeddable API — over 15+ providers and 70+ MCP extensions. Block's goose, now an Agentic AI Foundation project. — versus — The open-source terminal coding agent: TUI, desktop app and server, provider-agnostic across 75+ model providers including local models, with LSP integration and plugins.
Both are open-source, provider-agnostic local agents with a CLI and desktop app. Goose is general purpose; OpenCode is coding first.
| goose | opencode | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 56k | 225k |
| Forks | 6.6k | 30k |
| Language | Rust | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Last activity | 2 days ago | today |
| Topics | agents, coding | coding, agents |
| Curated connections | 11 | 6 |
goose — the curator's take
The default answer when someone wants a real agent on their own machine and does not want to assemble one. Rust, three surfaces (desktop app, CLI, API), 15+ providers including Ollama and your existing Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini subscriptions over ACP, 70+ MCP extensions, and custom distributions if you want to ship your own branded build. Now governed under the Linux Foundation's AAIF rather than one vendor, which matters if you are betting a product on it. It is deliberately general — code, research, writing, data — so it has no opinion about your SDLC: no verification gates, no worktree isolation, no PR pipeline. If you want an agent that must prove its work, or a spec-to-PR factory, layer that on or pick a purpose-built harness. Note the repo moved from block/goose; old links and forks still point at the old org.
opencode — the curator's take
Use it if you want a Claude Code-class agent that isn't tied to one vendor: bring any provider or a local model, and script it through its client/server design. The large plugin and wrapper ecosystem around it is a plus. Skip it if you're happy on a single vendor's native CLI, which usually gets that vendor's newest features first. The desktop app is beta.