agentboards.org
Compare/Claude Code vs Warp

Claude CodevsWarp

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
Anthropic · Terminal agent
#3MCP
Panel
7.0
2 spec wins
Reliability
7.2
Usefulness
8.0
Cost
5.5
Longevity
7.2

“Included with Pro at $20, which is how you learn what the Max plan is for.”

Warp
Warp · Terminal agent
#20OSSMCP
Panel
6.5
3 spec wins
Reliability
6.5
Usefulness
6.7
Cost
5.5
Longevity
7.2

“Scored 75.8 on SWE-bench Verified with a best-of-k wrapper, which is also how most of us get through code review.”

Spec by spec

SpecClaude CodeWarp
Architecture
CategoryTerminal agentTerminal agent
Runslocal, cloudlocal, cloud
Platformsmacos, linux, windowsmacos, linux, windows
Context window200k tokens, 1M on select modelsnot documented
Protocols
MCP clientYesYes
MCP serverYesNo
Capabilities
Runs terminal commandsYesYes
Multi-file editsYesYes
Git operationsYesYes
Browser controlYesYesComputer Use environments bundle Chromium plus the Playwright CLI and can attach over CDP, so the agent navigates, clicks, fills forms and reads pages.
Sandboxed executionYesYesCloud runs execute in a containerized sandbox built from a Docker image with no access to the local machine; local interactive sessions are not sandboxed.
Multi-agent orchestrationYesYes
Headless / CI modeYesYes
Models
BackboneClaudeGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, open-weight models via Fireworks
Bring your own modelYesThrough Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud's Agent Platform, Microsoft Foundry, or any LLM gateway your organisation runs, with model IDs pinned per deployment. YesAny OpenAI-compatible endpoint (OpenRouter, LiteLLM, an internal gateway) plus BYO Anthropic, OpenAI or Google keys and custom routers.
Local modelsNoClaude Code routes only to Claude models. Anthropic states it does not support routing Claude Code to non-Claude models through any gateway, and gateway model discovery drops every model ID that does not contain "claude" or "anthropic", so a local Ollama or LM Studio endpoint is not a supported setup. YesOllama, LM Studio, vLLM and llama.cpp are supported through the custom inference endpoint, but only when exposed at a public URL via a tunnel, since localhost and private addresses are rejected.
Cost
Pricing modelmixedmixed
Starts at$20/mo$20/mo
Free tierNoYes
Bring your own keyYesYour own Anthropic API key, or your own AWS, Google Cloud or Azure account. Yes
Openness
Open sourceNoYes
LicenseproprietaryAGPL-3.0
GitHub stars148,88965,338

Which one would each critic pick

CriticClaude CodeWarpPick
El Juez——not enough reviews
El Amigo7.87.3Claude Code — Use it if you live in the terminal and can pay for Max or an API key; it is the strongest terminal agent here for real repositories.
El Crítico6.86.0Claude Code — The sandbox is opt-in and covers only Bash, and one vendor sits behind the model, so the risk lands on your filesystem and your invoice.
El Profesor6.86.0Claude Code — A capable architecture whose claims are supported by no benchmark on record; the design is principled and unmeasured.
La Inversora8.56.8Claude Code — Anthropic owns the model, the distribution and the invoice, which is the rarest kind of moat in this category.
La Jefa7.06.0Claude Code — Team seats at $20 with SSO, Enterprise for audit logs; the metered part is what sixty engineers on agentic tasks will actually cost.
El Hacker5.06.8Warp — AGPL-3.0 now, custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint, mcpServers config, headless Agent CLI; local models only once a tunnel makes them public, and bring-your-own-key behind a Business seat, which I will hold against it.

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.