Continue vs Zed
A side-by-side comparison of Continue and Zed, two IDE tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Continue | Zed |
|---|---|---|
| Category | IDE | IDE |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License | Open core | Open core |
| Deployment | Local | Local |
| Platforms (differs) | VS Code extension, CLI, macOS, Windows, Linux | macOS, Linux, Windows |
| Model support (differs) | Multi-model | BYO key / model |
| Vendor (differs) | Continue Dev | Zed Industries |
| 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
Zed
GPU-accelerated Rust editor from the Atom/Tree-sitter creators, with an open protocol letting external agents drive it.
- Very fast, low-latency editing
- Open Agent Client Protocol
- Plugs in Claude Code and CLI agents
- Parallel agents and edit prediction
- Built-in multiplayer collaboration
- Smaller extension ecosystem
- Younger than VS Code
- Some language tooling less mature
- Best on macOS, Linux catching up
When to pick which
Both cover Code generation, Autonomous coding agent, and IDE integration.
Pick Continue if you need Terminal / CLI agent.
- Terminal / CLI agent (secondary capability)
They share capabilities, but each leads with different ones as a headline job:
Continue is built around Autonomous coding agent.
- Autonomous coding agent (primary capability)
Zed is built around IDE integration.
- IDE integration (primary capability)
They also differ on:
- Platforms
- VS Code extension, CLI, macOS, Windows, Linux · macOS, Linux, Windows
- Model support
- Multi-model · BYO key / model