Most VS Code developers ask the wrong version of this question.
They ask which open-source coding agent is "best," then spend a week comparing three products that no longer want to win on the same thing.
That is the real shift here:
- Roo Code is no longer just an open-source extension choice, because its docs now frame the extension and cloud agents as one system
- Continue is no longer just a VS Code add-on, because its docs now frame an open stack across IDE, CLI, and PR checks
- Cline still makes the strongest case for explicit local approval, tool visibility, and MCP-heavy control
So the first decision is not "which one feels smartest."
It is: what exactly are you trying to standardize?
Start With The Operating Model, Not The Extension Card
Most real teams evaluating these tools are actually choosing between three different operating models:
- a powerful editor-native agent that can later expand into delegated cloud work
- an open stack that can live in the editor, the terminal, and the pull-request lane
- a local-first agent where explicit approval and tool inspectability are part of the trust model
That split matters more than feature-count comparisons because it tells you where the workflow is supposed to grow next.
If you skip that question, the evaluation quickly turns into random model swapping and screenshot-driven bias.
Choose Roo Code If You Want Power In VS Code Now And Broader Agent Work Later
Roo Code is the strongest first test when you still want the main loop to feel editor-native, but you do not want the product surface to stop at the editor.
That is what makes it different from the older "open-source alternative to Cursor" framing. Roo's current docs push a broader story:
- the VS Code extension is the interactive local surface
- cloud agents are the delegated surface
- both sit on the same model-agnostic and mode-driven foundation
That makes Roo a strong fit when your trial sounds like this:
- "We want open-source, but not the smallest or safest possible tool."
- "We want strong VS Code interaction now and the option to delegate later."
- "Model choice, modes, and higher-autonomy workflows are part of the appeal, not accidental extras."
Do not start with Roo if your team already knows it dislikes configuration overhead or does not want the product pushing beyond the editor loop.
Choose Continue If You Want One Open Stack Across IDE, Terminal, And PR Checks
Continue now makes the clearest case when the team wants the useful part of the workflow to survive beyond one editor session.
Its current docs do not position it as "just a VS Code extension." They position it as:
- open-source IDE extensions
- an open-source CLI
- configurable rules and MCP-backed agent behavior
- AI checks that run on pull requests from markdown definitions in the repo
That changes the evaluation.
Continue is the better first pick when your real requirement sounds like this:
- "We want the same agent logic to show up in the editor and in the terminal."
- "If something works, we want to turn it into a repeatable repo rule or PR check."
- "Open configuration is valuable because we expect to standardize it, not because we enjoy tinkering."
Do not choose Continue first if the team's only real goal is "give me the strongest interactive VS Code experience today." In that narrower case, Continue can feel like infrastructure before it feels like relief.
Choose Cline If Approval And Inspectability Are The Product
Cline is still the cleanest fit when local control is the point, not just a comfort preference.
Its current docs still emphasize the same core promise:
- it lives in the editor and terminal
- it can read files, write code, run commands, use tools, and work with MCP
- every action requires your approval unless you deliberately relax that boundary
That makes Cline the right first test when your evaluation sounds like this:
- "I want to see and approve risky actions before they run."
- "Tool visibility matters more than having the broadest product story."
- "MCP servers, browser steps, and local execution are part of the real workflow."
Cline is usually the wrong first pick when the team already knows it wants a more automated, lower-friction surface and will resent approval prompts from the first hour.
The Honest Shortcut
If you want the shortest real decision path, use this:
- start with Roo Code when editor power plus future delegation is the attraction
- start with Continue when repo-level standardization across surfaces is the attraction
- start with Cline when local approval and inspectable tool use are the attraction
That is a better first cut than trying all three "just to be thorough."
Run Two Real Trials, Not Three Vague Demos
Do not benchmark all three on the same afternoon. That usually measures your own fatigue more than the products.
Pick the two most plausible candidates and use the same brief in both:
Context:
- This is a real repo I actively work on.
- Inspect the repo before proposing edits.
Task:
- [replace with one narrow real task]
Rules:
- Keep the scope small
- Name the first files you would inspect
- Name one nearby thing that must stay unchanged
- Run the smallest useful validation step
Return:
- likely files
- short plan
- actual changes
- validation result
- remaining risk
Then score the run on the questions that actually matter:
- Did it start in the right files?
- Did the control model help or irritate?
- Did the configuration surface feel like leverage or drag?
- Could you imagine using the same tool again tomorrow without a long setup ritual?
- Did the run reveal a path toward the workflow you actually want, not just a decent demo?
Three Ways Teams Misread This Category
Mistaking Model Tweaking For Product Fit
If you keep switching models, providers, and settings because the workflow still feels wrong, that is usually not a model problem first. It is a product-fit problem.
Choosing By Open-Source Identity Alone
Open-source posture is a real requirement for some teams. It is not a workflow answer by itself.
You still have to decide whether you want delegation headroom, repo-defined checks, or approval-first local control.
Rewarding The Tool That Gives The Best Demo
The best demo is often not the best fit.
The better question is which tool still feels right on the second ordinary task, after the novelty wears off and the repo constraints start pushing back.
Use Cursor As A Sanity Baseline, Not As A Betrayal
If the shortlist still feels muddy, add one commercial baseline run with Cursor.
That does not mean you should switch. It tells you whether the friction you feel is actually about open-source flexibility or whether you simply want a smoother editor-native product.
If Cursor immediately feels more natural, be honest about the implication:
the problem may not be that Roo, Continue, or Cline are weak. The problem may be that your team does not really want to configure this much of its agent surface.
The Practical Recommendation
Choose Roo Code when you want the strongest open-source editor experience in VS Code and you care that it can grow into broader agent workflows later.
Choose Continue when you want one open stack that can live in the IDE, the CLI, and the pull-request lane.
Choose Cline when explicit local approval, tool visibility, and MCP-connected control are the real reasons you are shopping in this category.
Official References
What To Read Next
Read Best AI Coding Agents if your shortlist is no longer limited to open-source tools in VS Code.
Read Cursor if you need the commercial baseline for editor-native workflow quality.
Read How To Choose An AI Coding Agent For Solo Developers if the real decision is about work surface and review burden rather than open-source posture.