Crush vs Goose
A side-by-side comparison of Crush and Goose, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Crush | Goose |
|---|---|---|
| Category (differs) | IDE | Agent |
| Pricing | BYO KEY | BYO KEY |
| License (differs) | Proprietary | Open source |
| Deployment | Local | Local |
| Platforms (differs) | CLI, macOS, Linux, Windows | macOS, Windows, Linux, CLI |
| Model support (differs) | BYO key / model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Charm | Block |
The honest brief
Crush
Charm's signature TUI polish over a model-agnostic terminal agent: switch providers mid-session and keep code, keys, and data on your own machine.
- Polished, keyboard-driven terminal UI
- BYO keys for many providers
- LSP-aware code context
- Runs locally; you control keys and data
- Requires your own model API keys
- Beta — some features still missing
- FSL license is not OSI open-source yet
Goose
Model-agnostic on-machine agent (15+ providers via your keys) with parallel subagents over 3000+ MCP servers.
- Apache-2.0 licensed
- Works with any LLM via your own key
- Spawns parallel subagents
- CLI + desktop app
- Huge MCP extension ecosystem
- Output quality depends on chosen model
- Terminal/YAML comfort required
- Recipe system has a learning curve
- No built-in IDE integration