Continue vs Tabby
A side-by-side comparison of Continue and Tabby, two IDE tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Continue | Tabby |
|---|---|---|
| Category | IDE | IDE |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License | Open core | Open core |
| Deployment (differs) | Local | Self-host |
| Platforms (differs) | VS Code extension, CLI, macOS, Windows, Linux | VS Code extension, Web, Linux, macOS |
| Model support | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Continue Dev | TabbyML |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
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
Tabby
Apache-2.0 core you self-host on your own GPU — only enterprise SSO/seats sit under a paid license.
- Self-hosted, full data control
- Open code LLMs or OpenAI-compatible endpoint
- VS Code, JetBrains, Vim extensions
- In-IDE chat included
- Needs your own GPU
- Smaller models than cloud rivals
- Setup and ops overhead
When to pick which
Both cover Code generation and IDE integration.
Pick Continue if you need Autonomous coding agent and Terminal / CLI agent.
- Autonomous coding agent (primary capability)
- Terminal / CLI agent (secondary capability)
Pick Tabby if you need Chat with documents.
- Chat with documents (secondary capability)
Tabby leans on IDE integration as a headline capability; Continue treats it as secondary.
- IDE integration (primary capability)
They also differ on:
- Deployment
- Local · Self-host
- Platforms
- VS Code extension, CLI, macOS, Windows, Linux · VS Code extension, Web, Linux, macOS