Claude Code tops speed tests but costs 3x more than OpenCode in agent shootout

If you’re picking an agent framework, your wallet and your patience are pulling in opposite directions. Composio ran DeepSeek V4 Flash through four frameworks — Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and Oh My Pi — across 30 real-world tasks involving Gmail, GitHub, Slack, and Notion. The results confirm what anyone who’s built on these tools already suspects: there is no best option, just different trade-offs you’ll feel immediately on your cloud bill.

Claude Code ripped through tasks in 122 seconds on average, making it the speed demon of the bunch. It also generated the fewest output tokens and made the leanest tool calls. But that efficiency comes at a premium — $0.195 per successful task, nearly triple OpenCode’s $0.073. OpenCode, meanwhile, crawled along but kept things cheap. Oh My Pi landed the highest success rate at 17 out of 30 tasks, yet clocked in as the slowest at 272 seconds per task. That’s over two minutes slower than Claude Code per task, which adds up fast if you’re running anything at scale.

Seven tasks lived or died entirely based on which framework was in the driver’s seat — same model, same tools, different outcomes. That’s a reminder that the wrapper matters more than most benchmarks admit. Overall success rates clustered tightly (OpenCode trailed slightly at 14/30), so the real differentiators here are cost and latency, not raw capability. A 2.2x speed gap and a nearly 3x cost spread are not rounding errors.

For teams building agent pipelines, this upends the usual “just pick the best model” advice. The framework you layer on top is an economic decision as much as an engineering one. Claude Code makes sense if latency is your bottleneck and you can stomach the per-task cost. If you’re processing thousands of tasks and margins are thin, OpenCode starts looking like the obvious choice — assuming you can live with the wait. The uncomfortable truth: nobody’s cracked the fast-and-cheap combo yet.