Claude Code and Devin are often compared as if they were interchangeable AI coding tools. Both can read large codebases, generate and modify code, and help with complex engineering tasks.
In practice, they are very different animals, and which one you choose can heavily impact your productivity. Yes, it’s a brave new world for the AI software engineer.
The difference between Devin and Claude Code is not about model quality or raw capability. It shows up in day-to-day work patterns. It’s about how often you interact with the tool, where it runs, and when you trust it to work on its own.
This article compares Devin versus Claude Code based on how developers actually use each. Instead of listing features in isolation, it examines where each tool fits into real-world workflows and why teams tend to gravitate toward one tool over another.
We’ll break this down bit by bit, but if you’re in a rush, here are all the biggest differences between Devin and Claude Code in one table:
| Usage Mode / Surface | Claude Code | Devin | What This Means in Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
Native desktop app | ✅ Yes (Mac, Windows) | ❌ No | Claude feels like a local developer tool; Devin is browser-only |
Web app | ✅ Secondary entry point | ✅ Primary control plane | Claude web starts work; Devin web runs work |
Local CLI / terminal | ✅ First-class | ❌ | Claude can be scripted, automated, CI-driven |
Local IDE (VS Code / JetBrains) | ✅ Native extensions | ❌ | Claude works inside your editor |
Hosted IDE (remote VS Code) | ❌ | ✅ Core experience | Devin brings you into its environment |
Slack | ✅ Code + collaboration | ✅ Task delegation | Claude helps you work; Devin gets assigned work |
GitHub PR workflows | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | Both handle reviews, diffs, and PRs |
Async background agent | ⚠️ Manual / scripted | ✅Built-in | Devin is designed to run while you’re away |
Pair programming (live) | ✅ Excellent | ⚠️ Secondary | Claude shines in tight feedback loops |
CI / headless automation | ✅ Strong | ⚠️ Limited | Claude fits infra + pipelines |
Org knowledge / repo indexing | ❌ | ✅ DeepWiki + indexing | Devin builds institutional memory |
Task planning & approval flow | ⚠️ DIY | ✅ Productized | Devin enforces plan → execute → review |
Primary mental model | Tool you operate | Teammate you delegate to | This explains almost every difference |
You can distill the core difference between Devin and Claude Code into one sentence:
With Claude, you operate; with Devin, you delegate.
On paper, Claude Code and Devin overlap in many areas. Both can:
- Work across multiple files
- Understand large repositories
- Integrate with GitHub and team workflows
- Assist with refactors, debugging, and code generation
Yet developers often have a strong preference once they try both.
Some describe Claude Code as feeling like an extension of their editor or terminal. Others describe Devin as feeling more like assigning work to a teammate and checking back later.
That gap becomes apparent quickly, even when the feature sets appear similar.
| Area | Claude Code | Devin |
|---|---|---|
How work starts | Prompt or command | Task assignment |
How often you interact | Frequent | Occasional |
Where work happens | Local environment | Hosted environment |
Sense of control | High | Shared |
Best early impression | Live collaboration | Delegated execution |
These differences compound over time. They impact trust, workflow, and the frequency with which teams use the tool.
One of the clearest differences between Claude Code and Devin is where they run.
Devin runs on a hosted platform. It provides a web interface and a managed execution environment. You enter that environment to assign tasks, review progress, and inspect results.
Claude Code, however, can live inside the developer’s existing toolchain. So you’re an iTerm freak? Or a Ghostty stan? No problem, Claude runs there. Spend your life in Cursor? Again, not a problem. It integrates with the terminal and local editors, and it even has a desktop app. You invoke it from the same environment where you write and run code already.
Location affects friction. A tool that lives locally blends into existing habits. A tool that lives in a platform introduces a context shift, but also provides a centralized view of work.
| Aspect | Claude Code | Devin |
|---|---|---|
Runs on local machine | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
Requires hosted workspace | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
Uses your editor directly | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
Uses hosted editor | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
Context switching | ✅ Minimal | ⚠️ Moderate |
Developers who spend most of their time in the editor like to stick close to their IDE. But teams managing longer-running tasks often value the visibility that a hosted environment provides. Security concerns and multiplayer capabilities also differ in this regard.
Another major difference between Devin and Claude Code is how work progresses once it starts.
Claude Code assumes the developer is actively involved. You prompt, review the output, adjust the direction, and continue. The interaction is continuous and flexible. Your hands are very much on the wheel.
Devin assumes that work can be delegated. You define a task, review a plan, and let execution proceed. Interaction happens at clear checkpoints rather than constantly.
| Aspect | Claude Code | Devin |
|---|---|---|
Primary interaction | Prompt driven | Task driven |
Feedback style | Continuous | Phased |
Developer involvement | Constant | Intermittent |
Natural end state | Open ended | Defined |
Best suited for | Exploration | Execution |
Neither model is universally better. They serve different types of work patterns. Problems arise when teams expect one workflow and get something very different.
Time management is another area where the two tools diverge.
Claude Code works best when the developer is present. It supports rapid back-and-forth conversation, which is useful for debugging, refactoring, and making design decisions. This is core:
Claude is very dialogical.
Devin is much less so. Devin is optimized for asynchronous execution. It handles work that runs while the developer is away and reports back later.
| Aspect | Claude Code | Devin |
|---|---|---|
Assumes developer present | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
Works unattended | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
Ideal for flow state work | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Sometimes |
Ideal for background tasks | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
Common risk | ⚠️ Interruptions | ⚠️ Loss of context |
Teams often use both patterns in a single day. The key is knowing which tool aligns with which type of task.
As teams scale and AI usage grows, governance becomes important.
Claude Code exposes building blocks. Hooks, command-line flags, permission controls, and CI integration enable teams to assemble custom workflows.
Devin provides structured workflows. Playbooks, approval steps, and templates encode governance directly into the platform.
| Aspect | Claude Code | Devin |
|---|---|---|
Low level primitives | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
Packaged workflows | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
Customization | ✅ High | ⚠️ Medium |
Setup effort | ⚠️ Higher | ⚠️ Lower |
Typical adopters | Platform teams | Process driven teams |
Teams with strong internal tooling often prefer primitives. Teams that want consistency with minimal setup often prefer packaged workflows.
Most failed AI tool adoptions don’t fail loudly. They fade into limited use.
The common cause is not capability. It’s a misalignment between how the tool works and how the team works.
| Team reality | Tool bias | Result |
|---|---|---|
Live UI iteration | Async focused | Flow disruption |
Exploratory debugging | Task focused | Overhead |
Heavy compliance needs | Primitive only | Reinventing process |
Delegation heavy culture | Tool driven | Micromanagement |
In each case, the tool behaves as designed. The friction comes from the user’s expectations.
Most developer teams don’t operate in a single mode. They might need a tool to do background work (Devin), and another tool to do more foreground work (Claude). Builder is a nice 'Goldilocks' alternative that allows for both: seamless background and foreground agent work, all while providing a best-in-class visual editor (imagine a figma inside your codebase, or a much more mature Cursor design mode).
Builder connects AI execution to real product context, especially for frontend and UI heavy work, while still supporting background agents and workflow triggers. And you can route your AI work to any number of models, so you can easily use Claude Code (or many others) under the hood with all the extra benefits of the Builder platform. You can also run the Builder platform locally as a desktop client, as an extension inside your IDE, or remotely in the Builder’s cloud platform.
| Dimension | Claude Code or Devin | Builder |
|---|---|---|
Frontend awareness | ⚠️ Limited | ✅ Native |
Workflow triggers | ⚠️ Optional | ✅ Core |
Best fit | Single dominant mode | Mixed workflows |
Builder doesn’t replace Claude Code or Devin outright. It complements teams that operate across multiple work styles. It also thrives with UI, design-heavy, or frontend tasks. When you need that high-value asset to look perfect on every device, choose Builder.
Instead of asking which tool is better, it helps to ask how your team spends most of its time.
| Question | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
Developers want stay in the editor while using AI? | Claude or Builder leaning | Devin leaning |
Tasks often run unattended? | Claude leaning | Devin leaning |
Governance is code driven? | Claude leaning | Devin leaning |
UI context matters? | Builder | Claude leaning |
Want to do async and sync agent work? | Builder leaning | Devin/Claude |
| Work pattern | Best fit |
|---|---|
Local interactive development | Claude Code / Builder |
Delegated async execution | Devin / Builder |
Structured process workflows | Devin / Builder |
Custom automation/Scripting | Claude Code |
Mixed UI and other code work | Builder |
Claude Code and Devin are both capable tools. The difference isn’t intelligence. It’s really not even features. It’s their mode that differs the most.
Claude Code fits teams that want tight control and continuous interaction. Devin fits teams that want to delegate work and review outcomes. Builder fits teams that move between modes, need product context alongside code, or have high-stakes UI work involved.
Understanding those differences makes the choice clearer and avoids frustration later.
The best teams are not looking for one perfect AI tool. They choose tools that fit how their work actually gets done.
Builder.io visually edits code, uses your design system, and sends pull requests.
Builder.io visually edits code, uses your design system, and sends pull requests.
Connect a Repo
