AgenvoyvsCodeMachine
Generated from the two spec rows. Green marks the better value where a spec has a clear direction. Everything else is just different.
Agenvoy
Agenvoy · Agent harness
OSSMCP
Panel
5.84 spec wins
- Reliability
- 4.8
- Usefulness
- 5.7
- Cost
- 7.7
- Longevity
- 4.8
“Billed as a personal agent that does live web research, which is the most expensive way yet devised to open a browser tab.”
CodeMachine
CodeMachine · Agent harness
OSS
Panel
5.83 spec wins
- Reliability
- 5.3
- Usefulness
- 6.3
- Cost
- 6.0
- Longevity
- 5.3
“Its selling point is doing the thinking you were already supposed to be holding in your head.”
Spec by spec
| Spec | Agenvoy | CodeMachine |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| Category | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Runs | local | local |
| Platforms | macos, linux | macos, linux, windows |
| Context window | not documented | not documented |
| Protocols | ||
| MCP client | Yes | No |
| MCP server | Yes | No |
| Capabilities | ||
| Runs terminal commands | Yes | Yes |
| Multi-file edits | YesFile work on your computer is one of its named jobs, alongside research and automation; it is a general personal agent rather than a repository editor. | Yes |
| Git operations | No | No |
| Browser control | YesLive web research is listed among the work it performs; the README does not name a browser-driving mechanism. | No |
| Sandboxed execution | YesTools it writes and runs are described as sandboxed, without the isolation mechanism being named in the README. | No |
| Multi-agent orchestration | No | Yes |
| Headless / CI mode | No | YesIt drives the headless scripting mode that Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and other engines expose, rather than running unattended itself. |
| Models | ||
| Backbone | any | Claude Code, Codex, Cursor |
| Bring your own model | Yes | Yes |
| Local models | No | No |
| Cost | ||
| Pricing model | byok | byok |
| Starts at | $0/mo | $0/mo |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Bring your own key | Yes | Yes |
| Openness | ||
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| GitHub stars | 541 | 2,512 |
Which one would each critic pick
| Critic | Agenvoy | CodeMachine | Pick |
|---|---|---|---|
| El Juez | — | — | not enough reviews |
| El Amigo | 6.0 | 6.0 | no preference |
| El Crítico | 5.3 | 5.3 | no preference |
| El Profesor | 5.5 | 6.0 | CodeMachine — Prompts and context are centralised so each step sees only what it needs, which bounds context growth, and no evaluation of the workflows is published. |
| La Inversora | 5.5 | 5.0 | Agenvoy — 481 stars, a product domain and a single open binary with nothing to sell beside it: the company is a name on a website, not a cap table. |
| La Jefa | 5.3 | 4.8 | Agenvoy — The only documented install is a script piped into a shell from a vendor domain, which is where sixty seats and my security questionnaire part company. |
| El Hacker | 7.0 | 7.5 | CodeMachine — Apache-2.0, one global npm install, and the workflow is a file I own rather than a hosted definition, which is the whole reason to use a layer like this. |
Picks are derived from each critic's own scores. Humans vote on matchups on the duels page.