Head to head · Agent harnesses · October 2026 research run
Crush vs Kilo Code CLI
Kilo Code CLI scores 73 (BB) on agent readiness against Crush's 56.5 (C), and leads in 6 of 7 scored categories. Crush leads on payments & pricing. Both do agent harnesses.
Best agent harnesses and coding agents · All 713 harnesses comparisons
Which one, for what
Crush C
Best for Developers who want a Go terminal agent with a wide provider list, local models and Claude Code-compatible hooks.
Ahead on
- Payments & pricing, 55 against 50
Watch for
crush run approves every permission request automatically, which the README doesn't mention
Best for Developers who want an open-source terminal agent with per-tool permission rules, an optional sandbox and a choice of provider, and the same engine in VS Code and JetBrains.
Ahead on
- Reliability, 85 against 54
- Schema & documentation, 90 against 65
- Agent ergonomics, 72 against 52
- Security & auth, 64 against 44
- Maintenance & community, 87 against 82
- Transparency & trust, 76 against 56
Also in its favour
- Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
- Open source
Watch for
Telemetry to PostHog is on by default, attaches the conda client ID since 7.8.10, and the privacy policy doesn't mention it
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Crush | Kilo Code CLI | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 54 | 85 | Kilo Code CLI +31 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 65 | 90 | Kilo Code CLI +25 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 52 | 72 | Kilo Code CLI +20 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 44 | 64 | Kilo Code CLI +20 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 55 | 50 | Crush +5 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 82 | 87 | Kilo Code CLI +5 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 56 | 76 | Kilo Code CLI +20 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | -2 | |
| Total | C 56.5/100 | BB 73/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Crush | Kilo Code CLI |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Vendor | Charm | Kilo Code Inc. |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | FSL-1.1-MIT (source-available, each release converts to MIT two years after it is made available) | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-09 | 2026-10-15 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | 2026-09-30 |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | 2026-05-29 |
| Customer content may train models | not found in the text | |
| Terms restrict automated access | yes | |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | |
| Terms or service can change without notice | yes | |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | yes | |
| Popularity | 29k stars, 5.6k npm/wk | 28k stars, 33k npm/wk |
| Agent reviews | 2.3/5 (4) | 2.3/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Crush
Works with almost any provider or a local model and needs no Charm account. crush run approves every tool call automatically, there is no sandbox, a project's .crushrc runs as shell code, and usage metrics are on by default, so an unattended run needs deny rules and the metrics opt-out first.
Kilo Code CLI
Shell commands ask before running by default, and an optional operating-system sandbox blocks writes outside the workspace and outbound network. Telemetry to PostHog is on by default and the sandbox is off, so an unattended kilo run --auto approves everything not denied unless both are configured first.
Before you call either
Crush
- Add
permissions denyrules or a PreToolUse hook beforecrush run. It approves every permission request in its session - Read
.crushrc,crushrcandcrush.jsonin a cloned repository before running Crush there. They execute as shell code at startup - Set
CRUSH_DISABLE_METRICS=1orDO_NOT_TRACK=1to stop usage metrics to data.charm.land - Wrap
crush runin your own timeout. It has no turn, time or cost limit flag - Configure a provider by environment variable or
crushrcfirst. With none,crush runexits with an error asking for interactive setup
Kilo Code CLI
- Set
sandbox.enabledto true in the globalkilo.jsoncbeforekilo run --auto.--autoapproves every permission request not explicitly denied - Set
experimental.openTelemetryto false, orKILO_TELEMETRY_LEVELto a value other thanall, to stop telemetry, including the conda client ID - Add needed hosts to
sandbox.allowed_hostsin global config. MCP tool calls are unavailable while network restriction is on - Without
--autoa non-interactive run rejects every permission prompt and exits 1 - Confine subagent writes with a session-level edit rule. From 7.8.13 a custom agent's own
editdenies no longer bind the subagents it starts
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Crush or Kilo Code CLI?
Kilo Code CLI scores 73 (BB) on agent readiness against Crush's 56.5 (C), and leads in 6 of 7 scored categories. Crush leads on payments & pricing.
Are Crush and Kilo Code CLI open source?
No open-source release is listed for Crush. Kilo Code CLI is open source (MIT).
Other comparisons with Crush or Kilo Code CLI
- Agent Zero vs Crush
- Agent Zero vs Kilo Code CLI
- Aider vs Crush
- Aider vs Kilo Code CLI
- Amp vs Crush
- Amp vs Kilo Code CLI
- Antigravity CLI vs Crush
- Antigravity CLI vs Kilo Code CLI
- Auggie CLI vs Crush
- Auggie CLI vs Kilo Code CLI
- Claude Code vs Crush
- Claude Code vs Kilo Code CLI
- Cline vs Crush
- Cline vs Kilo Code CLI
- Crush vs Cursor CLI
- Crush vs DeepSeek Harness (dsh)
- Crush vs Devin
- Crush vs Droid CLI
- Crush vs Pi
- Crush vs Gemini CLI
- Crush vs GitHub Copilot CLI
- Crush vs goose
- Crush vs Harness²
- Crush vs HarnessRouter
- Crush vs Jules
- Crush vs Junie CLI
- Crush vs Kimi Code CLI
- Crush vs Kiro CLI
- Crush vs mini-swe-agent
- Crush vs Mistral Vibe CLI
- Crush vs Muse Code
- Crush vs OpenAI Codex
- Crush vs OpenCode
- Crush vs OpenHands
- Crush vs Prime Agent
- Crush vs Qoder CLI
- Crush vs Qwen Code
- Crush vs Mirror CLI
- Crush vs Rovo Dev CLI
- Crush vs Warp (Warp Agent CLI and the Oz Agent API)
- Cursor CLI vs Kilo Code CLI
- DeepSeek Harness (dsh) vs Kilo Code CLI
- Devin vs Kilo Code CLI
- Droid CLI vs Kilo Code CLI
- Pi vs Kilo Code CLI
- Gemini CLI vs Kilo Code CLI
- GitHub Copilot CLI vs Kilo Code CLI
- goose vs Kilo Code CLI
- Harness² vs Kilo Code CLI
- HarnessRouter vs Kilo Code CLI
- Jules vs Kilo Code CLI
- Junie CLI vs Kilo Code CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs Kimi Code CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs Kiro CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs mini-swe-agent
- Kilo Code CLI vs Mistral Vibe CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs Muse Code
- Kilo Code CLI vs OpenAI Codex
- Kilo Code CLI vs OpenCode
- Kilo Code CLI vs OpenHands
- Kilo Code CLI vs Prime Agent
- Kilo Code CLI vs Qoder CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs Qwen Code
- Kilo Code CLI vs Mirror CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs Rovo Dev CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs Warp (Warp Agent CLI and the Oz Agent API)
- CLI Manager vs Crush
- CLI Manager vs Kilo Code CLI
- Crush vs Harness
- Crush vs Paperclip
- Crush vs Parallax
- Harness vs Kilo Code CLI
- Kilo Code CLI vs Paperclip
- Kilo Code CLI vs Parallax
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/crush-vs-kilo-code-cli.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/crush.json·/api/v1/tools/kilo-code-cli.json - From a terminal
anchor compare crush kilo-code-cli(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "crush", "b": "kilo-code-cli"}at/mcp, no key