AutoGen
Continue
| Feature | AutoGen | Continue |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Free only | Free only |
| Free Plan | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Best For | ai-researchers, developers, enterprise-ai-teams, data-scientists | developers, open-source-advocates, privacy-focused-devs, self-hosters |
| Founded | 2023 | 2023 |
| Multi Agent | ✓ | ✗ |
| Code Execution | ✓ | ✗ |
| Human In Loop | ✓ | ✗ |
| Tool Integration | ✓ | ✗ |
| Customizable Agents | ✓ | ✗ |
| Conversation Patterns | ✓ | ✗ |
| Autocomplete | ✗ | ✓ |
| Chat | ✗ | ✓ |
| Inline Editing | ✗ | ✓ |
| Multi Model Support | ✗ | ✓ |
| Context Providers | ✗ | ✓ |
| Custom Commands | ✗ | ✓ |
✓ AutoGen Pros
- Microsoft backed
- Multi-agent conversations
- Flexible
- Active development
✗ AutoGen Cons
- Complex setup
- Documentation gaps
- Requires coding expertise
✓ Continue Pros
- Fully open-source (Apache 2.0)
- Works with any LLM provider
- VS Code and JetBrains support
- Local model support
✗ Continue Cons
- Requires self-configuration of LLM
- Less polished than Copilot
- Setup can be complex for beginners
The Verdict
AutoGen is built for ai researchers and developers, with a focus on multi-agent and code-execution. Continue targets developers and open source advocates and leads with autocomplete and chat.
Both tools use custom enterprise pricing — you'll need to contact sales for a quote, which makes direct cost comparison difficult.
Both offer free plans, so you can test each with your real workflow before committing to a subscription.
Both tools are a solid fit for developers — in those cases, the decision often comes down to workflow style and how your team prefers to organize work.
This is a genuinely close comparison. If you can, sign up for both free trials (where available) and run a one-week test with your actual team tasks before deciding.