I get asked this a lot. The short answer: use a terminal agent over an IDE-based one.

I use three agents daily — Droid, Claude Code, and Codex. All three run in the terminal. I’ve tried Cursor, Windsurf, Cline, and others. I keep coming back to the terminal.

Here’s the full landscape as I see it, and why I think terminal agents are the better bet.

The Two Categories

There are two kinds of coding agents:

Terminal agents — they run in your terminal, independent of any editor. You talk to them, they read and write files, run commands, and commit code. Examples: Claude Code, Codex, Aider, Amp, Goose, Droid.

IDE-embedded agents — they live inside an editor, usually VS Code or a fork of it. They see your open files, your cursor position, your selections. Examples: Cursor, Windsurf, Cline, GitHub Copilot.

“Terminal” isn’t a perfect label — Claude Code now has a VS Code extension, a desktop app, and a web interface. Cline recently shipped a CLI. The lines blur. But the core distinction holds: terminal agents are editor-independent. They don’t care what editor you use or whether you have one open at all.

Why Terminal Agents Win

The agent doesn’t belong in your editor

I don’t write code anymore. The agents do. I review diffs, browse code, nudge direction — but I’m not typing out implementations. Once you accept that, putting the agent inside your editor stops making sense. The editor is for reading code, not for hosting the thing that writes it.

With Cursor or Windsurf, the agent is your editor. You’re locked into their VS Code fork. If you prefer WebStorm, Neovim, Emacs, or even just a different VS Code setup — tough.

Terminal agents don’t care. I use WebStorm for code navigation and Neovim for quick edits. My agents run in tmux in separate windows. The agent reads the files, makes changes, and I see the diffs in whatever tool I prefer. Going full agentic means detaching the agent from the editor — they’re separate concerns now.

Composability

Terminal agents follow the Unix philosophy — they’re programs you can pipe, script, and chain. You can run them in CI. You can wrap them in loops. You can have one agent review another agent’s work. You can feed them logs from other processes.

# pipe server logs into the agent
tail -200 app.log | claude -p "any anomalies here?"

# have another agent review what the first one wrote
claude -p "review the uncommitted changes for issues"

IDE agents are self-contained. They do things inside the IDE and that’s it. You can’t easily script Cursor or pipe data through it.

Parallel sessions

I routinely run 3-5 agent sessions at once in tmux — some on the same repo, some on different projects. I work on main, not worktrees. I auto-rename the tmux windows so I can tell them apart. One agent is implementing a feature on project A, another is writing tests for project B, a third is fixing lint warnings back in project A. This is natural with terminal agents — each is just a process in a pane.

Doing this in an IDE-embedded agent means opening multiple editor windows, each consuming resources and fighting over the same workspace state.

Your terminal already does everything

I saw someone request pagination for Claude Code. You don’t need it. If you run Claude Code in tmux, you already have scrolling, paging, and search. No need to add features to the agent when tmux already handles it.

The same applies to session management, window splitting, history, and output capture. The terminal ecosystem has decades of tooling. IDE agents have to reinvent all of this inside the IDE.

Model flexibility

Most terminal agents let you pick your model. Droid is model-agnostic. Aider works with dozens of models. Codex uses OpenAI models. Claude Code uses Claude models but can route through Bedrock, Vertex AI, or Azure. Amp gives you access to frontier models from multiple providers.

Cursor and Windsurf offer model choices too, but it’s always filtered through their platform. Terminal agents tend to give you more direct access — including local models, custom endpoints, and BYOK setups.

The Landscape Right Now

Here’s my quick take on the terminal agents worth knowing about:

  • Claude Code — Anthropic’s agent. The most polished. Strong tool use, great codebase understanding, solid git integration. Runs everywhere now — terminal, VS Code, desktop app, web. The terminal CLI is still the best experience.

  • Codex — OpenAI’s open source agent. Written in Rust, 67k GitHub stars, actively developed. Runs commands in sandboxed environments. Good for review tasks and as a second opinion on code. Recently shipped a TUI and app mode.

  • Aider — 42k stars, 5.7M installs. Not fully agentic — it won’t autonomously run shell commands or iterate on multi-step plans like Claude Code or Codex. It does auto-lint after each edit and can loop on test failures, but these are specific built-in loops, not open-ended agent behavior. It’s great at targeted edits, works with almost any LLM, and gives you fine-grained control over costs. The repo map feature helps it understand larger codebases. Worth having in the toolbox alongside an agentic agent.

  • Droid — Factory’s agent. Model-agnostic, has spec mode for planning before coding, good context management. Supports skills and custom droids. I use it as my primary agent.

  • Amp — from the Sourcegraph founders. Recently killed their editor extension to go terminal-only. Pay-as-you-go with no markup. Supports sub-agents and has interesting “deep mode” for complex tasks.

  • Goose — Block’s open source agent. 33k stars. Extensible via MCP, works with any LLM, available as both CLI and desktop app. Core written in Rust. More of a general-purpose agent — not just coding.

And the IDE-embedded agents:

  • Cursor — the most popular. Fork of VS Code with deep AI integration. Tab completion, agentic composer, cloud agents. Used by Stripe, NVIDIA, etc. If you’re going to use an IDE agent, this is the one.

  • Windsurf — another VS Code fork. Similar approach to Cursor.

  • Cline — VS Code extension, 59k stars. Open source (Apache 2.0). Recently added a CLI. The most transparent of the IDE agents — shows you every step and asks permission.

  • GitHub Copilot — the original. Good for inline completions. The agent mode has improved but still lags behind the dedicated agents.

When IDE Agents Make Sense

I’m not saying IDE agents are useless. If you’re new to coding agents, Cursor has the lowest barrier to entry — install it, start typing. The inline diffs and visual feedback are genuinely nice. If you live in VS Code anyway and don’t care about scripting or composing agents with other tools, an IDE agent is fine.

Tab completion is something IDE agents do better. Cursor’s Tab model is fast and accurate for small, predictive edits while you’re actively writing code. But if you’re working agentically, you’re not writing code — you’re directing agents that write code. It’s closer to managing a team of programmers than being one. You design, review, and steer. You don’t go in and edit their work keystroke by keystroke. Tab completion solves a problem that doesn’t exist in an agentic workflow.

What I Actually Use

I wrote about my full setup in detail. The short version:

  • Droid, Claude Code, and Codex with shared configuration
  • All running in tmux, each in its own window
  • Skills for common workflows — commit, review, deploy, take-over
  • AGENTS.md in every project for persistent instructions
  • WebStorm and Neovim for reading/editing code

The terminal agents fit into this because they’re just processes. They compose with tmux, with each other, with my deployment pipeline, with everything else I use. An IDE agent would replace my editor and still not give me the flexibility I have now.

Picking One

If you want one recommendation: Claude Code. It’s the most capable right now, the broadest model access, the most surfaces (terminal, VS Code, desktop, web), and the most active development. Start there, and add another agent when you want a second opinion or a different model.

If you want tight control over costs and don’t need full agentic behavior: Aider. It’s not agentic, but it’s effective for targeted edits and works with almost any LLM.

Whatever you pick, pick a terminal agent. You’ll outgrow an IDE agent the moment you want to run two sessions, script a workflow, or use a different editor.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best coding agent right now?

Claude Code is the most capable as of March 2026. It has the best codebase understanding, runs everywhere (terminal, VS Code, desktop, web), and is the most actively developed. Droid and Codex are strong alternatives if you want model flexibility or open source.

Should I use Cursor or Claude Code?

Cursor is an IDE-embedded agent — the agent lives inside a VS Code fork. Claude Code is a terminal agent that runs independently of your editor. If you work agentically (directing agents rather than writing code yourself), Claude Code gives you more flexibility: parallel sessions, scripting, composability with other tools, and freedom to use any editor.

What is the difference between terminal and IDE coding agents?

Terminal coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, Aider, Droid, Amp, Goose) run in your terminal, independent of any editor. IDE-embedded agents (Cursor, Windsurf, Cline) live inside an editor. Terminal agents are more composable — you can pipe data through them, run them in CI, script them, and run multiple sessions in parallel. IDE agents offer tighter editor integration like tab completion and inline diffs.

Is Aider an agentic coding tool?

Not fully. Aider auto-lints after each edit and can loop on test failures, but these are specific built-in loops — it won’t autonomously run shell commands or iterate on multi-step plans the way Claude Code or Codex do. Aider is great for targeted edits with fine-grained cost control, and it works with almost any LLM.

Can I use multiple coding agents together?

Yes, and I recommend it. I use Droid, Claude Code, and Codex with shared configuration. Having a second agent review the first agent’s work is one of the most reliable quality improvements I’ve found. Terminal agents make this easy — they’re just processes you can run side by side.