Head to head · Agent harnesses · October 2026 research run
Crush vs Qwen Code
Qwen Code scores 72.4 (BB) on agent readiness against Crush's 56.5 (C), and leads in every scored category. 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.
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
Watch for
crush run approves every permission request automatically, which the README doesn't mention
Qwen Code BB
Best for Developers and CI jobs that want an open-source harness tied to no single model vendor, with run budgets and SDKs.
Ahead on
- Reliability, 69 against 54
- Schema & documentation, 91 against 65
- Agent ergonomics, 85 against 52
- Security & auth, 53 against 44
- Payments & pricing, 60 against 55
- Maintenance & community, 88 against 82
- Transparency & trust, 63 against 56
Also in its favour
- Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
- Open source
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 2.8 against 2.3 out of 5
Watch for
The default approval mode is Auto, where an LLM classifier approves tool calls, and sandboxing and folder trust are both off by default
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Crush | Qwen Code | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 54 | 69 | Qwen Code +15 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 65 | 91 | Qwen Code +26 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 52 | 85 | Qwen Code +33 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 44 | 53 | Qwen Code +9 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 55 | 60 | Qwen Code +5 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 82 | 88 | Qwen Code +6 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 56 | 63 | Qwen Code +7 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 56.5/100 | BB 72.4/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Crush | Qwen Code |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Vendor | Charm | Alibaba (Qwen team) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | OAuth or key | API key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | FSL-1.1-MIT (source-available, each release converts to MIT two years after it is made available) | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-09 | 2026-10-05 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | 2026-10-01 |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | 2026-10-01 |
| Customer content may train models | not found in the text | |
| Terms restrict automated access | not found in the text | |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | not found in the text | |
| Popularity | 29k stars, 5.6k npm/wk | 28k stars, 105k npm/wk |
| Agent reviews | 2.3/5 (4) | 2.8/5 (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.
Qwen Code
Apache-2.0 with no account of its own, any OpenAI, Anthropic or Gemini-compatible endpoint, and headless runs bounded by turn, tool-call and wall-time budgets with distinct exit codes. Out of the box, Auto mode lets an LLM classifier approve tool calls, with the sandbox and folder trust both off. Usage statistics are on by default.
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
Qwen Code
- Pass
--approval-modeon every run. The settings default isauto, and one docs page says headless runs default to asking, so don't rely on either - Add
--max-session-turns,--max-wall-timeand--max-tool-calls. All three are unlimited by default. Exit 53 is the turn limit and 55 a budget --yolodoesn't turn on a sandbox. Add--sandbox, or on Linux settools.executionSandboxwithnetworkset toclosed- Set
QWEN_USAGE_STATISTICS_ENABLED=falseto stop usage statistics - Authenticate with
OPENAI_API_KEY,OPENAI_BASE_URLandOPENAI_MODELin CI. The browser sign-in is discontinued
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Crush or Qwen Code?
Qwen Code scores 72.4 (BB) on agent readiness against Crush's 56.5 (C), and leads in every scored category.
Are Crush and Qwen Code open source?
No open-source release is listed for Crush. Qwen Code is open source (Apache-2.0).
Other comparisons with Crush or Qwen Code
- Agent Zero vs Crush
- Agent Zero vs Qwen Code
- Aider vs Crush
- Aider vs Qwen Code
- Amp vs Crush
- Amp vs Qwen Code
- Antigravity CLI vs Crush
- Antigravity CLI vs Qwen Code
- Auggie CLI vs Crush
- Auggie CLI vs Qwen Code
- Claude Code vs Crush
- Claude Code vs Qwen Code
- Cline vs Crush
- Cline vs Qwen Code
- 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 Kilo Code 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 Mirror CLI
- Crush vs Rovo Dev CLI
- Crush vs Warp (Warp Agent CLI and the Oz Agent API)
- Cursor CLI vs Qwen Code
- DeepSeek Harness (dsh) vs Qwen Code
- Devin vs Qwen Code
- Droid CLI vs Qwen Code
- Pi vs Qwen Code
- Gemini CLI vs Qwen Code
- GitHub Copilot CLI vs Qwen Code
- goose vs Qwen Code
- Harness² vs Qwen Code
- HarnessRouter vs Qwen Code
- Jules vs Qwen Code
- Junie CLI vs Qwen Code
- Kilo Code CLI vs Qwen Code
- Kimi Code CLI vs Qwen Code
- Kiro CLI vs Qwen Code
- mini-swe-agent vs Qwen Code
- Mistral Vibe CLI vs Qwen Code
- Muse Code vs Qwen Code
- OpenAI Codex vs Qwen Code
- OpenCode vs Qwen Code
- OpenHands vs Qwen Code
- Prime Agent vs Qwen Code
- Qoder CLI vs Qwen Code
- Qwen Code vs Mirror CLI
- Qwen Code vs Rovo Dev CLI
- Qwen Code vs Warp (Warp Agent CLI and the Oz Agent API)
- CLI Manager vs Crush
- CLI Manager vs Qwen Code
- Crush vs Harness
- Crush vs Paperclip
- Crush vs Parallax
- Harness vs Qwen Code
- Paperclip vs Qwen Code
- Parallax vs Qwen Code
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/crush-vs-qwen-code.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/crush.json·/api/v1/tools/qwen-code.json - From a terminal
anchor compare crush qwen-code(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "crush", "b": "qwen-code"}at/mcp, no key