Opencode has matured quickly. In our tests it handled common coding workflows well: repository context loading, structured patch generation, shell execution, and iterative fix loops. Setup took longer than managed assistants, but the control surface was better for teams with internal platform capacity.
Where Opencode performs strongly
The extension layer is the differentiator. We were able to bind custom tools for deployment checks, incident lookups, and documentation gates with less friction than expected. That made Opencode useful for real workflows instead of only greenfield coding sessions.
Another strong area is runtime visibility. Logs and command traces are easier to integrate into existing observability pipelines because you own the full loop. For security-sensitive environments, this can outweigh the convenience of managed services.
Where managed assistants still win
Managed tools remain better for fast onboarding and predictable default behavior across mixed-skill teams. If your organization needs immediate, low-maintenance productivity gains, managed systems still reduce operational drag.
We also saw better recovery handling in edge-case conversations from managed tools. Opencode can match this, but only after deliberate prompt and policy tuning. Teams without a dedicated owner for the coding assistant will feel that cost.
Decision framework
- Choose Opencode when control, extensibility, and telemetry integration are required.
- Choose managed assistants when speed to adoption and lower maintenance matter most.
- Hybrid approach: use managed tools for general development and Opencode for regulated or high-control workflows.
Current recommendation: Opencode is production-usable when owned by a team that can maintain guardrails and tooling. Without that ownership, managed assistants still deliver better net output over the first two quarters.