Graft vs QwenLM/qwen-code
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
Short answer
- Graft is growing faster: +1,065 GitHub stars in the last 30 days vs +465 for QwenLM/qwen-code.
- Pick Graft for: turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual. Pick QwenLM/qwen-code for: an open-source AI coding agent that lives in your terminal.
From GitHub data refreshed daily.
G
Graftopen-source
Turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual understanding specific to your codebase.
Q
QwenLM/qwen-codeopen-source
An open-source AI coding agent that lives in your terminal.
Metrics
| Graft | QwenLM/qwen-code | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 9.5k | 28.3k |
| Star velocity /mo | 1.1k | 465 |
| Commits (90d) | 506 | 3.5k |
| Releases (6m) | 0 | 10 |
| Overall score | 0.7281102466707609 | 0.8642094222460844 |
FAQ
- Which is more popular, Graft or QwenLM/qwen-code?
- QwenLM/qwen-code has more GitHub stars (28,273 vs 9,504).
- Which is more actively developed, Graft or QwenLM/qwen-code?
- QwenLM/qwen-code had more commits in the last 90 days (3,463 vs 506).
- Should I use Graft or QwenLM/qwen-code?
- Compare their capabilities, limitations and "best for" notes above. Both are open source, so trying each on a small task is the fastest way to decide.