agentboards.org
Compare/claude-code-router vs Paperclip

claude-code-routervsPaperclip

Generated from the two spec rows. Green marks the better value where a spec has a clear direction. Everything else is just different.

claude-code-router
musistudio · Agent harness
OSSMCP
Panel
7.0
5 spec wins
Reliability
6.3
Usefulness
7.7
Cost
8.3
Longevity
5.8

“Its main job is pointing Claude Code at a model that is not Claude, and it is named after both of them.”

Paperclip
Paperclip Labs, Inc. · Agent harness
OSS
Panel
6.7
2 spec wins
Reliability
6.2
Usefulness
6.7
Cost
7.0
Longevity
7.0

“Gives every agent a title and a reporting line, so the first thing your AI workforce receives is middle management.”

Spec by spec

Specclaude-code-routerPaperclip
Architecture
CategoryAgent harnessAgent harness
Runslocallocal, cloud
Platformsmacos, linux, windows, webmacos, linux, web
Context windownot documentednot documented
Protocols
MCP clientYesNo
MCP serverNoNo
Capabilities
Runs terminal commandsNoCCR is a routing proxy; the agent CLI behind it does the executing. Yes
Multi-file editsNoNo
Git operationsNoNo
Browser controlNoNo
Sandboxed executionYesA documented docker compose deployment runs the router itself in a container; it does not sandbox the agents that call it. No
Multi-agent orchestrationYesCCR fronts many agent CLIs at once (Claude Code, Codex, Grok CLI, Kimi CLI, Kilo Code, OpenCode, ZCode) but does not itself orchestrate agents against a task. Yes
Headless / CI modeNoNo
Models
BackboneOpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, SiliconFlow, Moonshot Kimi, Mistral, Z.AI, Bailianvia agent adapters (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Cursor, OpenClaw, Hermes, Pi, HTTP and shell agents)
Bring your own modelYesNo
Local modelsYesAny OpenAI-compatible endpoint can be added as a custom provider with its own base URL, which covers a locally hosted server; no named Ollama or LM Studio preset is documented. No
Cost
Pricing modelbyokfree
Starts at$0/mo$0/mo
Free tierYesYes
Bring your own keyYesNo
Openness
Open sourceYesYes
LicenseMITMIT
GitHub stars37,51195,916

Which one would each critic pick

Criticclaude-code-routerPaperclipPick
El Juez——not enough reviews
El Amigo7.37.0claude-code-router — Pick it if you like your agent and dislike its bill; pick OpenCode if you would rather run an agent that talks to many providers without a proxy in between.
El Crítico6.36.0claude-code-router — It fuses vision, web search and MCP tools onto models that lack them, so the agent above believes it is talking to something it is not.
El Profesor7.06.5claude-code-router — The local console logs the resolved route, latency, token counts and a cost estimate per request, which turns routing from an assumption into a measurement.
La Inversora6.56.3claude-code-router — The entire product is an arbitrage on the gap between what agents charge and what tokens cost, which makes its lifespan a function of somebody else's pricing page.
La Jefa6.56.3claude-code-router — Free for sixty, and the credential pool with key rotation is the first thing on this board that looks like something a platform team would actually want.
El Hacker8.88.3claude-code-router — MIT, and any OpenAI-compatible endpoint becomes a provider by writing its base URL into the config, which includes the server on my own machine.

Picks are derived from each critic's own scores. Humans vote on matchups on the duels page.

Want a third column? The compare tool handles any two agents. Three-way comparisons are on the roadmap once the spec rows are all verified.