Cline vs Continue
A side-by-side comparison of Cline and Continue, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Cline | Continue |
|---|---|---|
| Category (differs) | Agent | IDE |
| Pricing (differs) | BYO KEY | FREEMIUM |
| License (differs) | Open source | Open core |
| Deployment | Local | Local |
| Platforms (differs) | VS Code extension | VS Code extension, CLI, macOS, Windows, Linux |
| Model support (differs) | BYO key / model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Cline Bot Inc. | Continue Dev |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
Cline
BYO-key VS Code agent that shows and asks approval for every edit and command — no markup, no lock-in.
- No vendor markup on token costs
- Approves every edit/command before running
- Bring any model (Claude, local, etc.)
- Plan/Act split for review before changes
- BYO-key means you pay provider token costs
- VS Code only, no standalone IDE
- Slower than Cursor on equivalent tasks
- No codebase indexing or background agents
Continue
Runs fully local via Ollama with your own keys, so code never leaves your machine — unlike cloud-bound rivals like Cursor or Copilot.
- Apache-2.0 open source
- VS Code, JetBrains, and CLI
- Any model provider, your own keys
- Chat, autocomplete, and agent modes
- More setup than turnkey tools
- Quality depends on chosen model
- Less polished than Cursor
When to pick which
Both cover Autonomous coding agent and Code generation.
Pick Cline if you need MCP server and Multi-agent orchestration.
- MCP server (primary capability)
- Multi-agent orchestration (secondary capability)
Pick Continue if you need IDE integration and Terminal / CLI agent.
- IDE integration (secondary capability)
- Terminal / CLI agent (secondary capability)
They also differ on:
- Pricing
- BYO KEY · FREEMIUM
- License
- Open source · Open core
- Platforms
- VS Code extension · VS Code extension, CLI, macOS, Windows, Linux
- Model support
- BYO key / model · Multi-model