Who This Guide Is For
This guide is for developers who already know they want an open-source coding agent in or around VS Code and do not want to waste a week testing every project with similar screenshots and very different workflow tradeoffs.
The key mistake here is treating Roo Code, Continue, and Cline as three versions of the same thing. They are not. They differ most in how much control you keep locally, how much of the workflow can stretch into automation later, and how much product surface you are willing to configure yourself.
Fast Answer
- Start with Roo Code if you want an open-source VS Code agent with strong model flexibility, rich operating modes, and a path toward delegated cloud work later.
- Start with Continue if you want one open stack across the editor, terminal, and repeatable AI checks after the first workflow proves useful.
- Start with Cline if your first requirement is local control, explicit approvals, and MCP-connected workflows you can inspect closely.
- Keep Cursor nearby as the commercial baseline if you suspect open-source posture matters less than the smoothest day-to-day editor experience.
The First Question Is Not Which One Is Smartest
The first useful question is simpler:
Where should trust come from?
Most real evaluations fall into one of these buckets:
- trust should come from local visibility and approvals before actions run
- trust should come from open configuration that can later become repeatable workflow logic
- trust should come from a capable editor agent now, with more autonomous execution available later
That split maps cleanly to the shortlist:
- Cline for approvals-first local control
- Continue for open stack across surfaces
- Roo Code for editor-first power with broader agent posture
When Roo Code Is Usually The Right First Test
Roo Code is the strongest first test when you still want the coding agent to feel close to the editor, but you do not want to lock yourself into a closed workflow or one vendor's model strategy. It is especially worth testing when the team expects to care about modes, provider choice, MCP servers, and possibly a future move toward cloud agents.
Use Roo Code first if your trial sounds like this:
- "We want open-source, but not a stripped-down experience."
- "We want rich VS Code interaction now and optional delegation later."
- "Model choice matters enough that we do not want the product deciding it for us."
When Continue Usually Wins
Continue becomes the sharper answer when the team wants the coding-agent layer to outlive one interactive session. The official product story now spans CLI, IDE, configurable AI rules, and repeatable checks in pull-request or CI workflows. That is a different buying logic from "give me the most capable VS Code agent today."
Use Continue first if your trial sounds like this:
- "We want one open stack across IDE and terminal work."
- "If a workflow works, we want to turn it into a repeatable check later."
- "Rules, models, and MCP tools should become part of team standardization."
When Cline Is Still The Cleanest Pick
Cline remains the best fit when local control is the point, not just a preference. Approval gates, tool use, and MCP-connected workflows are core to the product logic. That makes it unusually good for developers who want to see actions before they happen and who treat the local machine as part of the trust boundary.
Use Cline first if your trial sounds like this:
- "I want explicit approval before more risky actions."
- "I care more about inspectability than about platform breadth."
- "MCP-heavy local workflows matter more than future CI or cloud extension."
Run One Fair Trial Instead Of Three Vague Trials
Use the same task brief in all three tools:
Context:
- This is a real repo I actively work on.
- Please inspect the repo before proposing edits.
Task:
- [replace with one narrow real task]
Requirements:
- Keep the scope small
- Name the first files you would inspect
- Explain what should not change
- If relevant, run the smallest useful validation step
Output:
- likely files
- short plan
- changes made
- validation run
- remaining risk
Then compare these five things:
- Did it identify the right files before editing?
- Did the approval model feel helpful or annoying?
- Did the model and tool configuration feel empowering or distracting?
- Could you imagine turning the useful parts into a repeatable workflow later?
- Would you willingly run a second real task with the same tool tomorrow?
What Good Fit Looks Like
A good fit usually feels smaller than the marketing pages suggest.
Roo Code is a good fit when the editor flow feels strong and the extra flexibility feels like headroom, not overhead.
Continue is a good fit when the open configuration and cross-surface story feel like leverage rather than fragmentation.
Cline is a good fit when the local approval model directly increases your trust instead of slowing you down.
Red Flags You Should Not Ignore
- the tool only feels good on toy prompts and vague demos
- you keep changing models and settings because the workflow itself still feels wrong
- you cannot tell whether the value is in the IDE, the terminal, or future automation
- the agent needs too much steering to stay inside one task boundary
- you find yourself choosing based on GitHub stars instead of what your review process can actually tolerate
If You Need A Fourth Baseline
When the open-source shortlist still feels ambiguous, add one commercial baseline test with Cursor. That does not mean you should switch. It means you need to know whether the friction you feel comes from open-source flexibility or from the whole editor-agent model itself.
If Cursor immediately feels more natural, the problem may not be model quality. The problem may be that you do not actually want to configure this much of the workflow.
Bottom Line
Choose Roo Code when you want open-source VS Code power with room to grow into broader agent workflows. Choose Continue when you want one open stack across IDE, terminal, and repeatable checks. Choose Cline when local approvals and MCP-connected control are the deciding factors.