GoClawvsSupacode
Generated from the two spec rows. Green marks the better value where a spec has a clear direction. Everything else is just different.
GoClaw
NextLevelBuilder · Agent harness
MCP
Panel
5.53 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.”
Supacode
Supabit · Agent harness
Panel
5.32 spec wins
- Reliability
- 5.7
- Usefulness
- 6.5
- Cost
- 5.5
- Longevity
- 3.5
“The sidebar nests rows by branch and hoists the worktrees that need you, which is triage with considerably better typography.”
Spec by spec
| Spec | GoClaw | Supacode |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| Category | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Runs | local, cloud | local |
| Platforms | macos, linux, windows | macos |
| Context window | not documented | not documented |
| Protocols | ||
| MCP client | Yes | No |
| MCP server | No | No |
| Capabilities | ||
| Runs terminal commands | 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. | Yes |
| Multi-file edits | No | YesFiles are changed by the coding agent running in each pane; Supacode supplies the worktree, terminal and review surface. |
| Git operations | No | Yes |
| Browser control | No | No |
| Sandboxed execution | No | No |
| Multi-agent orchestration | Yes | Yes |
| Headless / CI mode | No | No |
| Models | ||
| Backbone | Anthropic, OpenAI, OpenRouter, Groq, DeepSeek, Gemini, Mistral, xAI, MiniMax, DashScope, Claude CLI, Codex, any OpenAI-compatible endpoint | Claude, Codex, Copilot |
| Bring your own model | Yes | Yes |
| Local models | 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. | No |
| Cost | ||
| Pricing model | byok | byok |
| Starts at | $0/mo | n/a |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Bring your own key | Yes | Yes |
| Openness | ||
| Open source | No | No |
| License | CC-BY-NC-4.0 | unknown |
| GitHub stars | 3,638 | 2,391 |
Which one would each critic pick
| Critic | GoClaw | Supacode | Pick |
|---|---|---|---|
| El Juez | — | — | not enough reviews |
| El Amigo | 5.8 | 6.0 | Supacode — Pick Supacode if you run several agents at once on a Mac and keep checking which one is stuck; pick a terminal multiplexer if you only ever run one. |
| El Crítico | 5.3 | 5.5 | Supacode — It knows what each agent is doing by installing hooks into that agent's own configuration, which makes the status display dependent on three other vendors not changing their hook format. |
| El Profesor | 6.3 | 6.8 | Supacode — Sessions run inside a separate session daemon rather than as children of the application, so the interface is a viewer over state that outlives it. |
| La Inversora | 5.5 | 4.8 | 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 | 4.8 | 4.0 | GoClaw — Role-based access, per-user workspaces and provider keys encrypted at rest is more of my checklist than most vendors manage, and there is still no directory to plug it into. |
| El Hacker | 5.5 | 4.8 | GoClaw — A non-commercial licence on a project shipped as one static binary: I can read every line of it and I am not permitted to earn a living with it, which is not open source. |
Picks are derived from each critic's own scores. Humans vote on matchups on the duels page.