App comparison · category peers
Roo Code vs Continue
Systematic comparison of Roo Code and Continue across deployment, access, interfaces, automation, and sourced product capabilities. Green highlights mark stronger normalized product-surface values; qualitative tradeoffs remain neutral.
Product surface
Side-by-side app facts
| Field | Roo Code | Continue |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Roo Code | Continue |
| Category | Coding agent | Coding agent |
| Lifecycle | Active | Active |
| Access | Open source | Open source |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local execution | Yes | Yes |
| Cloud execution | No | No |
| Platforms | macOS, Windows, Linux | macOS, Windows, Linux |
| Interfaces | IDE extension | IDE extension, CLI |
| Model access | Multiple hosted and local model providers | Multiple hosted and local model providers |
| Automation | Custom modes, tools, checkpoints, and MCP workflows | Agent mode, rules, tools, and headless workflows |
| Multi-agent | Yes | Unknown |
| Persistent memory | Unknown | Unknown |
| MCP support | Yes | Yes |
| Pricing | Free software; model usage is separate | Free core software with optional managed services |
14 comparable fields · 4 material differences · Editorially curated pair with developer-owned primary sources
Shared surface
Overlapping documented capabilities
Developer evidence