Warp

The platform for coding agents, locally and in the cloud.

4.8•69 reviews•

2.5K followers

The platform for coding agents, locally and in the cloud.

4.8•69 reviews•

2.5K followers

•

•

The best terminal for building with agents + Oz, the orchestration platform for cloud agents

Warp Alternatives

Our Top Picks

Claude Code

5.0 ·

Choose Claude Code if...

✓you need deep context on huge codebases
✓you prefer a CLI-first coding agent
✓you want high-quality patches with guidance

See details ↓

Zed

4.9 ·

Choose Zed if...

✓you want a fast AI-native code editor
✓you need real-time multiplayer collaboration
✓you rely on Vim keybindings in-editor

See details ↓

Devin by Cognition

5.0 ·

Choose Devin by Cognition if...

✓you want autonomous end-to-end task execution
✓you need agents to handle full workflows
✓you prioritize benchmark-leading SWE agent performance

See details ↓

GCLI

5.0 ·

Choose GCLI if...

✓you just want safe natural language commands
✓you want explanations saved in shell history
✓you need a lightweight assistant inside your shell

See details ↓

Lumo CLI

Choose Lumo CLI if...

✓you want open-source and provider flexibility
✓you need it to work anywhere quickly
✓you prefer a simple CLI assistant over a terminal UI

See details ↓

What to Consider

Warp has earned attention by turning the terminal into an agentic development environment—mixing a modern, block-based UX with AI that can generate commands, explain output, and help ship changes faster. But the alternatives landscape is broader than “another terminal”: some options focus on being the deepest coding agent in a CLI (for large codebase changes), others are full-on high-performance AI code editors, and some are lightweight assistants that simply translate natural language into safer shell commands. You’ll also see tools optimized for different constraints—open-source and bring-your-own-model flexibility, paid products that emphasize guardrails and support, and more autonomous agents aimed at end-to-end task execution.

In evaluating Warp alternatives, we prioritized how well each tool fits real workflows: speed and quality of code changes, context handling, safety and permissioning, and how smoothly it integrates with your existing stack (shell, Git, and editors). We also weighed practical considerations like pricing model, platform support, collaboration/remote usage, and whether the product is mature enough to rely on daily versus best for experimentation.

Claude Code

Anthropic’s deep-context AI coder

5.0 · 172 reviews

Learn more →

Choose Claude Code when you want a pure coding agent that’s optimized for deep, multi-file changes and you’re happy living primarily in a CLI workflow. Users describe it as an “exceptional AI coding agent” that can handle everything from MVPs to complex, multi-layered applications when you provide solid architectural and security guidance through prompts and context high-quality results. If your main goal is reliable patch generation and iteration on a real codebase, Claude Code’s strength is the agent itself rather than a reimagined terminal UI.

Claude Code also fits well if you already use a multi-tool setup and want the agent to be your coding “engine” while other tools handle environment UX. In community discussion, some developers say that for coding they’ve been relying more on Claude Code, and others pair tools by running Claude Code alongside different terminals/editors depending on the task run Claude Code through Warp. That makes it a strong alternative when Warp’s “all-in-one ADE” approach feels heavier than you need.

The key trade-off is that Claude Code users still want more of the surrounding ADE scaffolding—one reviewer explicitly calls out that the main improvement area is deeper scalability toward a fuller environment with richer workflow/context management and tighter integration, like what tools like Warp are evolving toward. Speed can also shape your choice: one user notes Claude Code can be slow because it searches through things it already looked through, which is where some people prefer an environment that can manage context and execution flow differently.

Best for

Ideal for engineers who want a deep-context CLI coding agent for serious, multi-file work.

Standout features

✓Deep-context coding agent for complex changes
✓CLI-driven code search, edits, and test runs
✓High-quality patch generation with guidance
✓Works well in multi-tool workflows

Zed

The Fastest AI Code Editor

4.9 · 33 reviews

Learn more →

Choose Zed if you want an AI-capable code editor experience rather than an agentic terminal-first environment. Zed’s differentiator is that it’s built for multiplayer by design, and the team emphasizes that real-time collaboration can “just work,” including when someone is using the Agent Panel so the group can share an AI-assisted flow in the same session real-time collaboration with other Zed users.

This makes Zed a strong alternative to Warp when your primary bottleneck is team editing speed and shared context, not terminal workflows or command execution. Instead of treating the terminal as the center of gravity, Zed’s pitch is “fast editor first” with collaboration primitives that feel native rather than bolted on, especially for pair/mob programming scenarios where you want to see changes as they happen Agent Panel… will just work.

Zed also tends to appeal to people who care about how AI usage and cost map to an editor plan, since it has a defined “Pro” offering and a documented usage model pricing for Zed Pro. If you’re comparing to Warp’s broader ADE direction, Zed is often the better fit when you want your “source of truth” to be the editor and collaboration layer, with AI as an integrated assistant, not a terminal agent orchestrator real-time collaboration.

Best for

Best for teams who want a fast editor with real-time collaboration and built-in AI assistance.

Standout features

✓Real-time multiplayer collaboration
✓Agent Panel that works in shared sessions
✓AI-assisted editing inside the editor
✓Clear Pro plan and usage model

Devin by Cognition

The first AI software engineer

5.0 · 2 reviews

Learn more →

Choose Devin if your goal is maximum autonomy—an agent that can take a task and drive it end to end—rather than a terminal UI that helps you steer agent work step by step. Users rate Devin very highly, suggesting strong perceived value for “AI software engineer” style workflows where you want the agent to own more of the execution loop 5/5 user rating. This can be a better fit than Warp when you’re optimizing for “hands-off completion” over tight, interactive control inside your local terminal.

In practice, Devin is often considered when you want outcomes like PR-ready changes with less operator time, which is a different mental model from Warp’s agentic environment approach. If you’re delegating larger tasks and want the agent to keep going without constant prompts, Devin’s positioning aligns with that style more than a command-centric interface rated highly by users.

The trade-off versus Warp is that Warp can feel more like a development cockpit—terminal, workflows, and agent supervision—while Devin is chosen when you want the “agent as teammate” to be the product. If you’re evaluating alternatives primarily on how independently the agent can execute, the consistently high user ratings are a useful signal that Devin resonates for that autonomous workflow 5/5 rating 5/5 rating.

Best for

Best for teams and founders who want an autonomous agent to execute tasks end to end.

Standout features

✓Autonomous end-to-end task execution
✓Agent-driven workflows beyond the terminal
✓Designed for larger delegated work
✓High user-rated “AI engineer” experience

GCLI

GPT powered command line interface

5.0 · 1 review

Learn more →

Choose GCLI if you like the idea of AI in the terminal, but you want it to stay lightweight and tightly scoped to generating safe commands inside your existing shell. The product was built explicitly to reduce the “Google it” context switching that breaks flow, by making the assistant appear right where you’ll execute commands and keeping the generated guidance as part of your session history tired of breaking my terminal flow explanations that become part of your shell history.

Compared with Warp’s broader agentic development environment approach, GCLI is appealing when you don’t want a new terminal paradigm, blocks UI, or a heavier ADE surface area—you just want natural language to turn into the right Docker, git, networking, or sysadmin command quickly. The maker highlights support across common operational tasks like file operations, process management, network diagnostics, git workflows, and general system administration, all optimized for terminal usage supports file operations… git workflows.

GCLI is also evolving across platforms, moving beyond its Linux beta to support macOS beta as well, which matters if you’re choosing an assistant that follows you across environments now in beta on macOS too. The trade-off is that you’re not getting Warp’s “terminal plus IDE-like agentic workspace” features; you’re choosing a focused command-line copilot designed to keep you shipping without changing how you use your shell integrates naturally into your shell workflow.

Best for

Ideal for CLI-heavy developers who want safe natural-language command generation without switching terminals.

Standout features

✓Natural language to shell commands
✓In-shell explanations saved to history
✓Optimized for git and sysadmin tasks
✓macOS beta after Linux beta

Lumo CLI

Navigate the terminal with natural language

Learn more →

Choose Lumo CLI if you want an open-source-feeling, “works anywhere” terminal assistant and you care more about portability than building a full agentic environment UI. The maker’s motivation is specifically about forgetting commands and setup steps when jumping between projects or working on servers, and wanting something that reduces that mental overhead forgetting commands and setups.

That makes Lumo a practical alternative to Warp when you’re not trying to replace your terminal with a new UX layer—you just want help translating intent into commands wherever you happen to be (local machine, server, different project). It’s positioned as the kind of tool you reach for to keep momentum when context switching between environments is the real problem jumping between projects or working on servers.

The trade-off is that you won’t get Warp’s polished “ADE” experience—blocks, collaboration surfaces, or integrated code review panels—but you also avoid committing to a heavier terminal replatforming. If your priority is minimizing friction and having a helper that travels with you across shells and machines, Lumo’s “anywhere” goal is exactly the point something that works anywhere without the mental load.