Are Cline and Continue both free and open source?

Yes. Cline (formerly Claude Dev) is open source under Apache-2.0 and the extension is free — you pay only for the model API tokens you consume (or nothing, if you point it at a local model). Continue is open source under Apache-2.0 as well, also free for the extension, with the same bring-your-own-key model. Neither charges a subscription for the tool itself; your cost is whatever the underlying model provider charges.

What's the core difference between Cline and Continue?

Cline is an autonomous agent: you give it a task, it plans, edits files, runs terminal commands, and can drive a browser, pausing for your approval at each step (its Plan/Act modes). Continue is a customizable AI coding assistant centered on inline autocomplete and chat, where YOU compose 'assistants' and 'blocks' (models, rules, prompts, MCP tools) and stay more in the driver's seat. Cline automates; Continue assists.

Which works better with local models like Ollama?

Both connect to local models via Ollama, LM Studio, or an OpenAI-compatible endpoint, but Continue's whole architecture is built around bring-your-own-model and mixing providers per role (one model for autocomplete, another for chat). Continue is the more natural home for a fully-local setup. Cline runs on local models too, but its autonomous agent loop is token-hungry and benefits more from a strong frontier model.

Does Cline support MCP servers?

Yes. Cline has first-class Model Context Protocol support — it can connect to MCP servers for tools and resources, and even has a marketplace flow for discovering them. Continue also supports MCP as one of its composable 'blocks.' If MCP tool use is central to your workflow, both qualify; Cline leans into MCP as part of its agentic execution, Continue treats it as one capability among many.

Is Cline safe to let run autonomously?

Cline's Plan/Act split exists precisely because full autonomy on a real codebase is risky. In Plan mode it proposes; in Act mode it executes with per-step approval you can tighten or loosen. Running it in auto-approve on an untrusted repo or with destructive shell access is the dangerous pattern. Treat it like a junior pair-programmer with terminal access: supervise, scope its permissions, and review diffs before committing.

Can I use both Cline and Continue at the same time?

Yes — they're separate VS Code extensions and don't conflict structurally. A common split is Continue for inline autocomplete and quick chat while you type, and Cline for delegated autonomous tasks (implement this feature, run the tests, fix what fails). They read different config, so keep shared conventions in AGENTS.md and let each tool's own settings stay thin.

Cline vs Continue (May 2026): Open-Source AI Coding Extension Showdown

# Cline vs Continue: Open-Source AI Coding Extension Showdown (May 2026) Cline and Continue are the two most-installed open-source AI coding extensions for VS Code, and they answer different questions. Cline answers "can the AI just do the task?" — it's an autonomous agent that plans, edits, runs commands, and drives a browser. Continue answers "can I build the AI assistant I want?" — it's a composable assistant where you wire up models, rules, and tools and stay closer to the wheel. Both are Apache-2.0, both are free extensions, both charge you only for the model tokens you burn. The choice is about workflow philosophy, not price.

Who wins at what

Cline wins on autonomous task execution, terminal and browser control, the Plan/Act approval loop, and transparent token metering. Continue wins on bring-your-own-model flexibility, customizable assistants, inline autocomplete quality, and a lighter footprint. They're complementary more than competitive.

Where Cline wins

Autonomous agentic execution. Cline is built to take a task and run it: read the codebase, propose a plan, edit multiple files, execute terminal commands, observe the output, and iterate. For "implement this feature and make the tests pass," Cline's agent loop does the work while you supervise. Continue can chat about the change, but it doesn't drive the whole task autonomously the way Cline does. Terminal and browser control. Cline can run shell commands and, in supported setups, control a headless browser to verify a UI change or scrape a result. This closes the loop between "wrote the code" and "checked it works" inside one tool. Continue is focused on the editor surface, not on driving external processes. Plan/Act human-in-the-loop. Cline's two-mode design — Plan to propose, Act to execute with per-step approval — is the right primitive for letting an agent do real work without losing control. You can tighten approvals on a risky repo or loosen them on a sandbox. This explicit safety gate is a Cline differentiator. Token transparency. Cline shows you the tokens and estimated cost of each task in real time. Because you bring your own API key, that visibility matters — you see what an autonomous run actually costs before it surprises your bill.

Where Continue wins

Bring-your-own-model, per role. Continue's architecture lets you assign different models to different jobs — a fast local model for autocomplete, a frontier model for chat, another for edits — and swap them freely. For teams standardizing on a specific provider or running fully local, Continue is the more natural fit. Customizable assistants and blocks. Continue exposes "assistants" composed of "blocks" — models, rules, prompts, docs, and MCP tools — that you can build, share, and version. If you want to engineer a bespoke AI coding setup rather than accept an opinionated agent, Continue gives you the construction kit. Inline autocomplete. Continue's tab-autocomplete is a first-class feature and a daily-driver experience. Cline is agent-first and doesn't compete on ghost-text completion as you type. If 80% of your AI value is fast inline suggestions, Continue is the better autocomplete tool. Lighter footprint. Continue can be run as a focused autocomplete-plus-chat assistant without invoking a full autonomous agent loop. For developers who want AI help but not an agent taking the wheel, that restraint is a feature.

Where the comparison gets uncomfortable

Autonomy is power and risk. Cline's strength — running commands and editing freely — is exactly what makes a careless auto-approve setup dangerous on a real repo. Continue's more constrained surface is safer by default but does less for you. There's no free lunch: the more the tool can do unsupervised, the more it can break unsupervised. Local models still trail on agentic work. Both tools support local models, but a small local model driving Cline's autonomous loop produces noticeably worse results than a frontier model. Continue's per-role model mixing partly mitigates this; Cline's agent loop exposes it. "Fully local autonomous coding" is aspirational, not solved. Configuration sprawl. Continue's composability is a double edge — more knobs means more ways to misconfigure. Cline is more opinionated and easier to start, but harder to bend. Pick based on whether you want a tool that ships with a strong default or one you assemble.

When to use both

These two coexist well:

Continue for inline autocomplete and quick chat while you type, on the model mix you prefer.

Cline for delegated autonomous tasks — implement a feature, run tests, fix failures, drive a browser check.

AGENTS.md as the shared conventions both tools (and your teammates' tools) can read.

MCP servers wired into either tool for external context and tools.

RuleSell's catalog includes MCP servers and rule packs tagged for both extensions — install the same context layer regardless of which agent you point at it.

Where this comparison fails / what we don't know

We did not benchmark Cline against Continue on a fixed task. Both ship fast and both are open source, so any feature gap named here can close in a release. The dimensions come from each project's documentation and community usage, not a controlled trial. We also don't know how the autonomous-agent category settles. Cline competes with CLI agents (Claude Code, Codex CLI) for the "delegate the task" job, and Continue competes with Copilot and Cursor for the "assist me as I type" job. Both extensions sit at a boundary that's still moving.