opencode vs Kilo Code: which costs less?

Both are open-source agents you pay per token for, with no subscription absorbing waste. The difference is where they run and how you reach a model, and that decides which one leaks.

Profile photo of Paul Irolla

By Paul Irolla

Founder · AI & developer tools · Tokenade

Ph.D. in AI · builds token-optimization tooling for AI coding agents

View author page
5 min read
Summarize with AI
Share on
Add to Preferred Sources
Cite this page
Part of the reduce AI coding agent token usage pillar. This page compares two agents, not two optimizers.

Should I use opencode or Kilo Code?

Kilo Code if you want one agent that follows you between VS Code, JetBrains and a terminal; opencode if you want a terminal-native tool and are comfortable bringing your own key. Neither has a subscription absorbing your waste, so the token discipline is yours either way. That last clause is the part that matters for cost and the part most comparisons skip. These are not tools where a monthly plan quietly eats your inefficiency. Every token either one wastes lands on a provider invoice you read. That makes them honest, and it makes the habits around them worth more than the choice between them.

What is opencode?

A terminal-native, open-source coding agent, written in TypeScript and maintained by Anomaly, the team formerly known as SST. The repository is anomalyco/opencode and it is MIT licensed. It is bring-your-own-key: you point it at a provider and pay that provider directly. There is no wallet abstraction in between, which is uncomfortable the first time you look at a bill and useful every time after. Its own cost instrumentation is genuinely good. opencode stats reports cumulative tokens and cost, and takes four flags — --days, --tools, --models, --project — that turn one number into a diagnosis. The --tools breakdown is the one that answers "what is eating my context", because tool calls are where tokens enter. There is a fuller walkthrough in how to reduce opencode token usage.

What is Kilo Code?

An open-source agent that runs in VS Code, JetBrains and a CLI, with a model marketplace in front of the providers. The repository is Kilo-Org/kilocode, MIT licensed, TypeScript, and the CLI ships as @kilocode/cli on npm. Its positioning is the multi-surface one: the same agent in your editor, your JetBrains IDE, and your terminal. The billing model is the real difference. Kilo advertises access to 500+ models with switching mid-task, at provider pricing with zero markup, and no API keys required to start. Read that as it is written: it is a routing and billing convenience, not a discount. You still pay per token, and the tokens are still yours to control.

Where does the money actually go on each?

Into the same three places, in the same order, on both. Neither agent has a cost profile that differs in kind. On both, the bill is dominated by:
  1. File reads. Whole files entering context when a fraction would do.
  2. Command output. Test runs, build logs, git output arriving unfiltered.
  3. Re-sent history. Every previous turn going back up the wire on the next one.
Input dominates output by roughly an order of magnitude on agent traffic, which settles where effort belongs: on what the agent reads, not on what it writes. That is true of both tools and it is why the choice between them is a workflow question rather than a cost question.

Which one gives you more control?

opencode, on the measurement side. Kilo, on the model side. opencode's advantage is that it tells you where the tokens went, per tool and per model, from a command you already have. If your problem is "the bill is too high and I do not know why", that is the more useful instrument. Kilo's advantage is that switching models mid-task is cheap and immediate. When a task turns out not to need the expensive model, you move it without restarting, and 500+ options means the cheap tier is usually a real option rather than a compromise. Both leave the same gap. Neither filters command output before it enters the context, neither deduplicates a file the agent reads for the fourth time, and neither compresses a tool manifest that is billed on every turn. Those are the three biggest line items on most invoices and they sit outside both tools.

Does the multi-surface thing cost anything?

Not in tokens directly, but it changes the sessions you have, and sessions are what cost. An agent living in your editor gets asked small questions constantly. An agent living in a terminal gets asked bigger ones, less often. Neither pattern is wrong, and they do not bill the same: many short sessions pay the standing prompt cost repeatedly, while few long sessions pay history growth instead. If you adopt Kilo across three surfaces, expect the number of sessions to go up. That is usually the point, and it is worth knowing before you compare a first invoice against an old one and conclude the tool is expensive.

How to apply this today

  1. Pick on workflow, not on price. Both are BYO-cost with no subscription cushion. The token bill follows your habits, not the logo.
  2. If you take opencode, run opencode stats --days 7 --tools 20 in week one. Establish where your tokens go before you form habits around them.
  3. If you take Kilo, decide your default model deliberately and use mid-task switching as a downgrade path, not only as an upgrade one.
  4. Attack the three shared drivers regardless of choice — file reads, command output, re-sent history — because neither tool touches them for you.
  5. Measure before and after any change. A percentage you did not measure on your own repository is not a result.

What goes wrong (anti-patterns)

Expecting "zero markup" to mean cheaper. It means you pay the provider's rate rather than a resold one. It says nothing about how many tokens you send, which is the number that actually varies. Comparing them on a benchmark neither published. Vendor numbers in this space are usually measured on the narrow slice a tool touches and then presented as though they covered the whole job. Ask what share of your traffic the claim even applies to before applying its percentage to anything. Adopting a multi-surface agent and blaming it for more sessions. More surfaces means more sessions means more standing prompt cost. That is arithmetic, not a defect. Treating either tool's built-in counter as an optimisation. Both can tell you what you spent. Neither reduces it. Measurement is step one, and it is not step two.
See also:

Cut your AI coding agent's token bill.

Ranked #1 on the Token-Harness Optimizer Leaderboard. Zero config.

Tokenade is the simplest way to cut what your coding agent sends to the model — set it up once and save on every prompt.

Learn more