Rankings: tools for running coding agents as a team
Last reviewed: September 2026
BAND for desktop ranks first with 8.3/10: it is the only tool we reviewed that combines agents from different vendors, local coding sessions and documented agent-to-agent handoff. Devin Desktop (7.8) is second and Conductor (6.6) third. Pure parallel runners score lower because their agents cannot pass work to each other.
How do the ten tools rank?
BAND is a client of the agency behind this site.
| Rank | Tool | Best for | Agent-to-agent handoff | Multi-vendor agents | Runs locally | Editorial score | Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #01 | BAND for desktop | Agents from different vendors handing off work in shared rooms, locally | Yes | Partial | Yes | 8.3 | Read review |
| #02 | Devin Desktop | One IDE managing local and cloud agents, including Devin's own coordinator | Partial | Yes | Yes | 7.8 | Read review |
| #03 | Conductor | Parallel Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and OpenCode runs on a Mac, with a clean review path | No | Yes | Yes | 6.6 | Read review |
| #04 | Nimbalyst | A free, open-source visual workspace for Claude Code and Codex sessions | No | Yes | Yes | 5.7 | Read review |
| #05 | Claude Code agent teams | Claude-only teams with a lead, shared task list and direct messages | Yes | No | Yes | 5.7 | Read review |
| #06 | Sculptor | Free, open-source parallel agents in local containers (research preview) | No | Yes | Yes | 5.4 | Read review |
| #07 | GitHub Copilot + Agent HQ | Issue-to-PR work assigned to several agents inside GitHub | No | Yes | No | 5.2 | Read review |
| #08 | OpenAI Codex | OpenAI-only parallel tasks across CLI, desktop app and cloud | No | No | Yes | 4.8 | Read review |
| #09 | Factory | Plan-driven Missions run by an orchestrator with Factory's own Droids | Partial | No | Yes | 4.7 | Read review |
| #10 | Cursor | Parallel cloud agents and best-of-n runs inside an IDE you already use | No | No | Yes | 4.5 | Read review |
Reviewed, not scored
Buzz (Block), buzz.xyz
An open-source desktop workspace from Block, in Developer Preview, where people and agents share communities with channels, threads and DMs. Coding agents join through an ACP harness (Goose, Codex, Claude Code), and each agent has its own keys. It runs on macOS, Windows and Linux, on a relay you operate or, during early access, on Block-hosted relays that were free with published limits (5 GB media, 365-day retention, 5 communities) when we read buzz.xyz/support on 2026-08-19. Loop prevention and crash recovery are not documented. Not scored because agent-to-agent handoff behaviour and setup effort are not documented in the sources we read.
Sources (read 2026-08-19)
How does each tool score on each criterion?
| Rank | Tool | Handoff (25%) | Multi-vendor (20%) | Local (15%) | Visibility (15%) | Human (10%) | Setup (8%) | Price (7%) | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #01 | BAND for desktop | 9.5 | 7.5 | 9.5 | 7.5 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 8.3 |
| #02 | Devin Desktop | 7.5 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 7.8 |
| #03 | Conductor | 3.5 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 6.6 |
| #04 | Nimbalyst | 1.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.7 |
| #05 | Claude Code agent teams | 8.0 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 5.7 |
| #06 | Sculptor | 1.5 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 5.4 |
| #07 | GitHub Copilot + Agent HQ | 3.0 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 5.2 |
| #08 | OpenAI Codex | 2.5 | 0.0 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 4.8 |
| #09 | Factory | 4.5 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 4.7 |
| #10 | Cursor | 2.5 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 4.5 |
Setup scores reward less effort (10 = install and go). Price scores reward low entry cost and a usable free tier; they are not a value-for-money judgement.
What do the seven criteria mean?
- Agent-to-agent handoff (25%): Can one agent pass a task, with context, to another agent without a human copying text between them? Full marks need a documented handoff or messaging mechanism, not just a shared screen.
- Multi-vendor agents (20%): Can agents from different providers (Anthropic, OpenAI, GitHub, open source) take part as peers? A tool that runs many models through one agent scores in the middle.
- Local execution (15%): Can the coding sessions run on your machine, on your files, with your toolchain? Cloud-only tools score low here; that is a fit question, not a quality judgement.
- Shared visibility (15%): Is there one place (a board, a dashboard, an architecture view) that shows what every agent is doing and what is blocked?
- Human intervention (10%): Can a human answer an agent's question, approve a step or redirect work in place, rather than killing and re-prompting a session?
- Setup effort (8%): How long from install to a working multi-agent run. Flags, tmux requirements, account creation and plugins all count.
- Price (7%): Cost of entry and whether a free tier is usable for real multi-agent work.
Why does each tool rank where it does?
1. BAND for desktop (8.3). Built for exactly the problem this site is about. Agents join shared rooms where they hand work to each other by @mention, and you respond where an agent needs direction. Supported agents: Claude Code via BAND's plugin (documented in docs.band.ai); Codex, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode are listed as coding-agent integrations on band.ai/integrations. BAND lists a kanban board and architecture view for desktop, marked Coming July 2026 on its site, so shared visibility scores 7.5. It also loses points on setup (account, CLI and plugin) and price, because Free and Pro are single-user and multi-user teams are on Enterprise by quote. macOS and Linux; Windows not yet supported. Review
2. Devin Desktop (7.8). The former Windsurf, relaunched June 2, 2026, now an IDE plus an Agent Command Center with a Kanban view of local and cloud agents. ACP lets third-party agents such as Codex, Claude Agent and OpenCode run inside it, and Spaces let related agents share context. The explicit coordinator model (managed Devins) applies to Devin's own cloud agents. Review
3. Conductor (6.6). The cleanest way to run Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and OpenCode side by side, each in its own workspace, branch and review path. Human multiplayer exists; agent-to-agent messaging does not. Local workspaces are macOS only. Review
4. Nimbalyst (5.7). Crystal's successor: a free, MIT-licensed visual workspace with a kanban of Claude Code and Codex sessions by phase, plus OpenCode and Copilot via ACP in alpha. The board tracks sessions; agents do not hand off. Review
5. Claude Code agent teams (5.7). The best-documented native team model: a lead, teammates, direct messages and a shared task list with dependencies. It is Claude-only (0 on multi-vendor under our rubric), experimental and disabled by default, with one team per session. Review
6. Sculptor (5.4). Imbue's free, MIT-licensed desktop app that runs Claude Code, Codex or any terminal-based agent, each in its own container. An experimental research preview with no Windows build yet. Review
7. GitHub Copilot + Agent HQ (5.2). Assign issues to Copilot and to third-party agents (Claude Code and Codex, listed on Pro) and track them in mission control. Everything runs in GitHub Actions, so it scores 0 on local execution; agents do not coordinate with each other. Review
8. OpenAI Codex (4.8). CLI, desktop app, IDE extension and cloud, all running parallel tasks with OpenAI models. The CLI is open source under Apache-2.0. OpenAI models only (0 on multi-vendor) and no documented handoff to other agents. Review
9. Factory (4.7). Missions put an orchestrator in charge of a plan executed by Factory's Droids. Its docs question whether running agents in parallel produces better results than sequential execution. Single vendor (0 on multi-vendor). Review
10. Cursor (4.5). Run as many cloud agents as you want in isolated VMs, or best-of-n local runs in worktrees. It is Cursor's agent throughout, with a choice of models (0 on multi-vendor), and nothing merges back for you. Review
Run your agents as a team
BAND for desktop lets your coding agents hand work to each other in shared rooms while you stay in the loop. Claude Code joins via BAND's plugin; Codex, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode are listed as integrations. Sessions stay on your machine (macOS or Linux).
Which tools did we consider but not rank?
Google Jules: an asynchronous agent that clones your repo to a cloud VM and opens a PR, with 3, 15 or 60 concurrent tasks depending on plan. Single vendor, cloud only, no cross-agent coordination, and Google still labels it beta. Not ranked. Source: jules.google/docs/usage-limits
Discontinued tools (Vibe Kanban, Crystal, Terragon) are covered on their alternatives pages, not ranked.
Questions about the rankings
Why is BAND for desktop ranked first?
It scores highest on the heaviest criterion, agent-to-agent handoff, keeps coding sessions local, and supports agents from more than one vendor. It scores lower than several rivals on multi-vendor support (Codex, Copilot and OpenCode are listed integrations rather than documented in the desktop quickstart), shared visibility (its kanban is marked Coming July 2026), setup effort and price.
Why does Conductor rank above Claude Code agent teams when agent teams can message each other?
Agent teams only work with Claude, are experimental, and have no board-style overview. Conductor runs four vendors' agents with a polished review path. Handoff is weighted highest, but agent teams score 0 on multi-vendor support and lower on setup.
Are these scores based on user reviews?
No. They are editorial scores from the rubric on our methodology page, based on vendor documentation and pricing reviewed in September 2026.
How often are rankings updated?
When a vendor ships a material change to multi-agent features or pricing. The review date is shown on every page.