amuxvsGoClaw
Generated from the two spec rows. Green marks the better value where a spec has a clear direction. Everything else is just different.
amux
Mixpeek · Agent harness
Panel
5.82 spec wins
- Reliability
- 5.2
- Usefulness
- 6.0
- Cost
- 7.5
- Longevity
- 4.3
“You can peek into a peer's terminal before interrupting it, which is more courtesy than most colleagues extend.”
GoClaw
NextLevelBuilder · Agent harness
MCP
Panel
5.52 spec wins
- Reliability
- 5.8
- Usefulness
- 6.0
- Cost
- 5.2
- Longevity
- 5.0
“It reaches you across seven messaging channels, so there is now nowhere left to hide from your own assistant.”
Spec by spec
| Spec | amux | GoClaw |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| Category | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Runs | local | local, cloud |
| Platforms | macos, linux, web | macos, linux, windows |
| Context window | not documented | not documented |
| Protocols | ||
| MCP client | No | Yes |
| MCP server | No | No |
| Capabilities | ||
| Runs terminal commands | Yes | YesAgents act through tools and can drive the Claude and Codex CLIs as providers; GoClaw itself is an agent platform rather than a repository editor. |
| Multi-file edits | Yes | No |
| Git operations | No | No |
| Browser control | No | No |
| Sandboxed execution | No | No |
| Multi-agent orchestration | Yes | Yes |
| Headless / CI mode | YesCron-style schedules and self-pacing autonomous loops run unattended; no CI integration is documented. | No |
| Models | ||
| Backbone | via managed agents (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, OpenCode, Ollama) | Anthropic, OpenAI, OpenRouter, Groq, DeepSeek, Gemini, Mistral, xAI, MiniMax, DashScope, Claude CLI, Codex, any OpenAI-compatible endpoint |
| Bring your own model | Yes | Yes |
| Local models | YesOllama is listed among the agent runtimes a worker can use. | YesAny OpenAI-compatible endpoint can be configured as a provider, which covers a local server, though no specific local runtime is named in the README. |
| Cost | ||
| Pricing model | byok | byok |
| Starts at | $0/mo | $0/mo |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Bring your own key | Yes | Yes |
| Openness | ||
| Open source | No | No |
| License | MIT with Commons Clause | CC-BY-NC-4.0 |
| GitHub stars | 513 | 3,638 |
Which one would each critic pick
| Critic | amux | GoClaw | Pick |
|---|---|---|---|
| El Juez | — | — | not enough reviews |
| El Amigo | 6.3 | 5.8 | amux — Pick amux if you want a fleet of agents working overnight with a board to wake up to; pick Crystal if you would rather supervise a couple of them yourself. |
| El Crítico | 5.5 | 5.3 | amux — The watchdog restarts crashed sessions and replays the last message, so a failing agent is resurrected rather than reported and the failure never surfaces. |
| El Profesor | 6.3 | 6.3 | no preference |
| La Inversora | 5.0 | 5.5 | GoClaw — 3,585 stars for a reimplementation of somebody else's personal-agent design: the claimed advantage is performance and packaging, which is the thinnest moat there is. |
| La Jefa | 5.0 | 4.8 | amux — There is no licence fee and no right to resell it either, and no CI integration is documented, so it schedules its own work outside anything I already monitor. |
| El Hacker | 6.5 | 5.5 | amux — One Rust binary with a SQLite store, model or provider swappable mid-run without losing context, and Ollama listed among the worker runtimes. |
Picks are derived from each critic's own scores. Humans vote on matchups on the duels page.