# comparison
How Bolt compares
Written honestly. opencode is Bolt's upstream and it's good — Bolt trades a narrower scope for a deeper agent roster, session portability, and a UI that doesn't feel like a log file.
| Feature | Bolt | opencode | Cursor | Other terminal agents |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Agent roster depth Named specialists with distinct prompts and permissions | 10 + subagents | Small set | 1 assistant | Usually 1 |
Per-agent access levels Read / Edit / Full enforced by the runtime | ||||
Multi-tool config compatibility Reads existing agent/config files instead of demanding its own | ||||
Session fork / share / import --fork, run --share, bolt import <url> | ||||
Detach & remote attach Leave a session, rejoin it — even on another machine | ||||
MCP support Server management including OAuth flows | MCP + OAuth | MCP | MCP | |
Desktop app Same engine, native shell | yes (editor) | |||
Animated, modern UI Not a flat scrollback log | ||||
Local, inspectable data sqlite sessions you can query yourself | ||||
Runs fully in the terminal No editor required |
supported partial not supported
vs opencode
Bolt is a fork, so the config format and much of the plumbing are compatible. What changed: the agent roster, the V2 session core, remote attach, and the whole UI layer.
vs Cursor
Cursor is an editor. Bolt is a terminal process you can script, detach, run in CI, and attach to from another machine. Different job, different shape.
vs other terminal agents
Most ship one general-purpose agent and a flat transcript. Bolt gives you specialists with real permission boundaries and sessions you can move around.