Aider vs OpenCode: context, commits and checks

For Aider vs OpenCode, try Aider first if you want to work with a small set of files and review frequent local commits. Try OpenCode 2 first if you want an agent to find files, edit them and run commands through a configurable tool workflow. Both can use different model providers, and both support scripted use.

OpenCode now has separate V1 and V2 documentation. This comparison uses OpenCode 2, checked on 20 October 2026. Before following an older tutorial, check the V2 migration guide: installing V2 can replace the same opencode command, and its configuration differs from V1.

I'm Lawrence Liu, the creator of Orbi. Orbi uses Pi for coding and review; it does not run Aider or OpenCode as its engine. This comparison covers documented workflows. Use the trial below to measure results and cost on your own tasks.

Aider vs OpenCode: which workflow fits?

Swipe horizontally to see all columns.

Start with the row that affects your daily work. If you already know the files involved, Aider's file selection is a useful starting point. If locating the change is part of the task, OpenCode's search and command tools are worth evaluating. Aider can also help locate files, so this is a preference about how you steer the work, not a limit on what it can find.

Give each tool the context it needs

In Aider, add editable files at launch or with /add. Its usage guide recommends a small relevant set; you can also start without files and let it help identify them. The repository map supplies selected symbols and relationships from the wider repository. It is a compact guide to the code, not the full contents of every file.

OpenCode 2 has search, read, edit and shell tools. You can ask it to find a function's callers before changing it. Judge the result by whether it found the relevant implementation and tests. A larger list of files read is not itself a better result.

For either tool, give the expected behavior and a way to check it. “Reject an expired token, preserve the valid-token behavior, and add a regression test” is more useful than “improve authentication.” Include your repository's real test command and any files or dependencies the task must leave alone.

Compare changes from the starting commit

Aider's Git integration normally commits its edits. It can also commit pre-existing changes before working on a dirty file. Its automatic commits can be disabled. OpenCode can run Git commands through its tools; whether a task leaves commits or uncommitted edits depends on the instructions and actions taken.

This makes plain git diff a poor comparison: after an agent commits, it can print nothing even though the task changed code.

Use separate clean checkouts of the same starting commit for the two trials. In each checkout, run this in Bash before starting the tool:

git status --short
trial_base=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

If status shows existing changes, prepare a clean trial checkout first. Keep this terminal open. After the agent finishes, run these commands in that same Bash session:

git rev-parse --verify "${trial_base:?Record trial_base before the run}^{commit}" >/dev/null &&
git status --short &&
git diff --stat "$trial_base" -- &&
git diff "$trial_base" -- &&
git log --oneline "$trial_base"..HEAD

The diff against trial_base includes tracked changes whether they have been committed, staged or left unstaged. Status also identifies untracked files, marked ??; their contents are absent from this diff, so inspect them separately. The log shows commits added after the starting point.

These Git commands were checked in an isolated repository with committed and uncommitted edits, plus an untracked file. That checks the inspection method, not either agent's coding performance.

Check what ran before accepting the change

Aider lints edited files by default and can run configured tests. Automatic tests require the test command and automatic-test setting. A local commit alone does not prove the tests passed. Its Git documentation also says commits skip pre-commit hooks by default; --git-commit-verify enables those hooks.

In OpenCode 2, inspect the command output and exit status for the tests you requested. Its native permission rules use an ordered permissions array and the shell action. Supported V1 configuration is normalized automatically; conversion to the native V2 format is optional. V2's base policy broadly allows actions, with exceptions such as asking about .env reads. Configure shell and outside-directory approval deliberately. Shell commands still run with the host user's authority.

Run your acceptance checks yourself after the final edit. Record existing test failures before the trial so that you can distinguish a new regression from an earlier failure. Passing the selected checks establishes their result, not that every requirement has been covered.

Try the same task with the same model

Choose a small real Issue with an observable result. Use the same starting commit, acceptance criteria and test command in both checkouts. Where both tools support it, select the same model and provider; record the exact model and reasoning settings. Aider's model connections and OpenCode 2's model selector explain the options. The tool name is not a model name, and using the same model still leaves differences in prompts, context and tool calls.

For each run, keep the final diff, test output, any corrections you had to give, and the usage or bill from the actual provider. Choose the workflow that produces a change you can verify with an acceptable amount of intervention. A free client does not determine your inference bill.

For automation, Aider supports non-interactive messages, and OpenCode 2 documents opencode run for scripts and CI. Confirm how your configured permissions and required inputs behave without a person at the terminal before scheduling real work.

If the task you want to delegate is an entire GitHub Issue, including independent review and a conditional merge, evaluate that delivery workflow separately. Orbi uses Pi for that work; a release starts with a separate release request and follows repository rules. The self-hosted guide explains those steps.

Related

For the wider shortlist, read OpenCode alternatives. Orbi vs Claude Code compares repository delivery with a coding agent workflow. Orbi Cloud runs Orbi's Issue delivery without a local Orbi installation.