Fitten Code

You will get more than you paid for, which is the entire case. Completion across a very wide range of languages, an agent chat that decomposes a task, and reusable skills that package the prompts and scripts you keep retyping, all at no charge in either editor family. Cost is the deciding trait here because nothing else about it stands out against the paid tools on this board.

Pick it if the price is the point and your work is not confidential. Pick CodeGeeX when you want a comparable free assistant with a published model you can read about.

The architecture decides the risk before any feature does. Completion requires surrounding context, project awareness requires more of it, and all of that inference happens on the vendor's infrastructure with no on-device path available, which means the tool's normal operation is a continuous export of your source. No retention policy, no regional statement and no opt-out are documented anywhere in the listing.

What it does right: the feature that flags risky changes as you type is a small, visible check whose mistakes cost nothing and whose successes arrive at the cheapest moment.

1. The context claim is the load-bearing one and it is unspecified: understanding a project implies indexing, ranking and a budget, and none of the three appears in the published material. 2. The edit path is equally vague, with the vendor describing task execution rather than a diff format or a review step. 3. Packaging prompts and scripts into callable modules is the one mechanism described concretely.

No benchmark and no model card accompany a proprietary code model. The observation: a vendor with its own model and no published evaluation of it has made a choice, and it is not a scientific one.

Eight hundred thousand installs with nothing to buy is a strategy, not an accident. Either an enterprise motion exists that is not published, or the company is buying distribution now and will price later, and both readings mean today's terms are provisional. Serving inference at that volume for free is expensive, which puts a clock on the arrangement regardless of intent.

Likely path: a paid tier appears, or the free service degrades to something cheaper to serve. Position: no company thesis available from public material, and adopt nothing whose terms can change without notice.

One sentence on the demo: it completed code quickly and I could not tell you where. Free tools are the hardest ones to govern because nobody files a request before installing them, and by the time this reaches a security review it is already on thirty laptops. There is no agreement to sign, no data processing terms to attach, no way to disable telemetry centrally and nothing that integrates with our directory. It contributes nothing to our pipelines either.

Onboarding is five minutes, which is part of the problem. Not yet.

I look for four things and none of them exist. There is no way to supply my own credentials, no alternative model, nothing that runs on my own hardware and no client for the tool servers I maintain. The extension is closed, so I cannot read what it transmits or when, and the only configuration is which features to switch off.

The skills feature is the nearest thing to an extension point, and it packages prompts for a system I still cannot inspect. This is the cleanest example on the board of a tool where the price is zero and the ownership is also zero.