SARAH vs everybody

Editors hold code. SARAH holds the whole job.

Cursor, Opencode, Claude Code and Codex are brilliant inside a codebase. SARAH is the desk around the codebase: providers, projects, memory, tools, publishing and control — so agents can do everything else too.

Honest version: strengths and limits for every tool below, SARAH included. SARAH is not better at everything — it is better at being the desk around the work.

Cursor

AI-first code editor, fork of VS Code

SARAH

Pros: Works with 100+ providers, so no model lock-in.

Pros: Projects, memory, tasks and backups live together.

Pros: Full desktop automation outside code.

Cons: Not a code editor — bring your own editor.

Cons: Fewer inline completions than Cursor.

Cons: Younger product, smaller community.

Cursor

Pros: Genuinely fast in-editor completions.

Pros: Agent mode plus Cloud agents.

Pros: Familiar VS Code feel, huge community.

Cons: Subscription plus usage costs stack up.

Cons: Code-first, not built for non-code jobs.

Cons: Best features need the higher tiers.

Opencode

Open-source agent — terminal, desktop app + IDE

SARAH

Pros: Visual home around the agent — projects, approvals, Time Machine.

Pros: Skills and plugins for non-code work.

Pros: Timers, publishing and computer control.

Cons: Not open source.

Cons: Does not replace a terminal workflow on its own.

Cons: Node/Electron desktop app, heavier than a CLI.

Opencode

Pros: Open source, MIT licensed.

Pros: 75+ providers out of the box.

Pros: Terminal, desktop app and IDE, very cheap to run.

Cons: You do the setup and pick your own models.

Cons: Terminal-first mindset, less hand-holding.

Cons: No built-in memory, gallery or control room.

Claude Code

Anthropic agent — terminal, desktop, web, IDE, Slack

SARAH

Pros: Runs Claude and every other provider side by side.

Pros: Files, FTP, screenshots and computer control beyond code.

Pros: Approvals, steering and a full activity log.

Cons: No 1M-token context of its own — capped by whichever provider you plug in.

Cons: Weaker native IDE integration.

Cons: Smaller ecosystem than Anthropic's.

Claude Code

Pros: Top-tier code quality on Anthropic models.

Pros: 1M-token context window.

Pros: Terminal, desktop, web, IDE, Slack and mobile.

Cons: Anthropic models only.

Cons: Pro/Max limits and API bills add up fast.

Cons: Code and repo focused, little for non-code work.

Codex

OpenAI agent — CLI, IDE, web, cloud + GitHub bot

SARAH

Pros: Use OpenAI models without being tied to a ChatGPT plan.

Pros: Local projects, notes and backups you own.

Pros: Plugin bridges for Discord, Spotify, printers and more.

Cons: No parallel cloud sandboxes — one machine, one queue.

Cons: No GitHub bot or PR automation.

Cons: Desktop only, no iOS or web client.

Codex

Pros: One ChatGPT seat covers CLI, IDE, web and iOS.

Pros: Parallel cloud sandboxes, PR-ready diffs, GitHub bot.

Pros: Generous allowance on Plus and Pro.

Cons: OpenAI models only.

Cons: Usage shares your ChatGPT allowance with chat.

Cons: Cloud-shaped, top tiers have been paused or limited.

“If your agent only lives in your editor, it can only do editor things.”

Try the wider desk.

Download SARAH and point it at the provider you already pay for.

Get SARAH