Comparison posts written by a vendor are usually worthless, because the vendor wins every row. This one tries to be useful instead: four tools, what each is actually built for, and the specific situations where you should pick something other than Vexi.
All four are good tools. They are solving different problems.
The short version
Cursor is an editor. If you want AI woven into a full IDE with inline diffs and tab-completion, that is what it is for.
Claude Code is Anthropic's own terminal agent, tuned tightly to Claude models. If Claude is your model and you want the most polished agent for it, use it.
OpenCode is an open-source terminal agent with broad provider support. It is the closest neighbour to Vexi and a genuinely strong option.
Vexi is an open-source terminal agent built around bringing your own key, staying entirely local, and working in five languages.
Where each one wins
Pick Cursor if you want an IDE
Cursor is a fork of VS Code, and that is its whole advantage. You get AI inside a real editor: inline suggestions as you type, diffs rendered in the gutter, click-to-accept, the extension ecosystem you already use.
A terminal agent cannot match that. If your work is mostly in an editor and you want AI in the same window, Vexi is not the tool. Cursor is a desktop application on a subscription, and its code is proprietary, so if either of those is a problem for you the calculus changes. But on editor integration it is simply better than any CLI, Vexi included.
Pick Claude Code if you are committed to Claude
Claude Code is built by the company that makes the model, and it shows. The tool use is tight, the agentic behaviour on long tasks is strong, and it is actively developed by a team with direct access to the model's behaviour.
If Claude is the model you want and you are comfortable inside Anthropic's ecosystem, Claude Code is likely to give you a better result on hard multi-step work than Vexi will. That is a real gap and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.
What you give up is optionality. It is proprietary software tied to one provider. You cannot point it at Groq's free tier because your budget ran out, or at a local model because your employer will not allow code to leave the building. Vexi's entire design assumes you might need to do exactly that.
Pick OpenCode if you like it more than Vexi
This is the honest one. OpenCode is open source, terminal-based, supports many providers, and does not phone home. It overlaps with Vexi substantially and it is well built.
The differences are real but narrower than the marketing of either project would suggest. Vexi's distinguishing pieces are the Context Compression Engine that carries decisions across sessions, first-class multilingual support, per-edit undo snapshots that work independently of git, and inline token and cost tracking. If none of those matter to you, the two tools will feel similar, and you should use whichever you prefer.
The four differences that actually matter
1. Who your code goes to
Vexi has no server. Your code goes to the provider whose key you supplied and nowhere else, because there is no Vexi backend to receive it. Claude Code sends to Anthropic. Cursor is a hosted product with its own infrastructure in the path. OpenCode, like Vexi, is local-first.
For most people this is a preference. For anyone working under a contract that specifies which infrastructure code may touch, it is the entire decision, and it eliminates two of the four options immediately.
2. Whether you can change models
Vexi supports 13 providers and detects which one you are on from the key format. OpenCode is similarly flexible. Claude Code is Claude. Cursor gives you a curated selection rather than an open field.
This matters more than it did a year ago. The best value model changes every few months, and free tiers have become genuinely usable. Being able to move is worth something.
3. What it remembers
Every tool here has some form of project context. The difference is what survives when the session ends.
Vexi's Context Compression Engine distills decisions rather than truncating history, and persists them in the project. The intent is that you explain your architecture once rather than every Monday. It is a plain readable file, so you can correct it when it goes stale, which it will.
4. What it costs
Cursor and Claude Code are commercial products with subscriptions. Vexi and OpenCode are free and MIT licensed, and you pay your model provider directly, which for several providers means paying nothing at all.
Free software with a metered API behind it is not automatically cheaper. Heavy agentic use on a premium model can exceed a subscription. The difference is that you see the meter: /usage shows tokens and estimated cost per session, so the number is in front of you rather than on a statement next month.
When Vexi is the wrong choice
To be concrete, do not use Vexi if:
- You want AI inside a graphical editor with inline completions. Use Cursor.
- You are committed to Claude and want the most refined agent for it. Use Claude Code.
- You need a shared team workspace with synced history across machines. Vexi is deliberately local and has none.
- You want someone contractually accountable for the tool. MIT software is provided as is.
When Vexi fits
Use Vexi if you live in the terminal, want to keep your code on your machine, want to switch providers without switching tools, and would rather spend nothing until you have a reason to. The install is one command and the uninstall takes nothing with it, which makes the cost of finding out fairly low.
npm install -g vexi-cli
vexi