cua vs GitHub Copilot
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | cua | GitHub Copilot |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Agent | Repository |
| UnfragileRank | 53/100 | 27/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 0 |
| Quality | 1 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 1 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 15 decomposed | 12 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Captures desktop screenshots and feeds them to 100+ integrated vision-language models (Claude, GPT-4V, Gemini, local models via adapters) to reason about UI state and determine appropriate next actions. Uses a unified message format (Responses API) across heterogeneous model providers, enabling the agent to understand visual context and generate structured action commands without brittle selector-based logic.
Unique: Implements a unified Responses API message format abstraction layer that normalizes outputs from 100+ heterogeneous VLM providers (native computer-use models like Claude, composed models via grounding adapters, and local model adapters), eliminating provider-specific parsing logic and enabling seamless model swapping without agent code changes.
vs alternatives: Broader model coverage and provider flexibility than Anthropic's native computer-use API alone, with explicit support for local/open-source models and a standardized message format that decouples agent logic from model implementation details.
Provisions isolated execution environments across macOS (via Lume VMs), Linux (Docker), Windows (Windows Sandbox), and host OS, with unified provider abstraction. Handles VM/container lifecycle (creation, snapshot management, cleanup), resource allocation, and OS-specific action handlers (keyboard/mouse events, clipboard, file system access) through a pluggable provider architecture that abstracts platform differences.
Unique: Implements a pluggable provider architecture with unified Computer interface that abstracts OS-specific action handlers (macOS native events via Lume, Linux X11/Wayland via Docker, Windows input simulation via Windows Sandbox API), enabling single agent code to target multiple platforms. Includes Lume VM management with snapshot/restore capabilities for deterministic testing.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive OS coverage than single-platform solutions; Lume provider offers native macOS VM support with snapshot capabilities unavailable in Docker-only alternatives, while unified provider abstraction reduces code duplication vs. platform-specific agent implementations.
Provides Lume provider for provisioning and managing macOS virtual machines with native support for snapshot creation, restoration, and cleanup. Handles VM lifecycle (boot, shutdown, resource allocation) with optimized startup times. Integrates with image registry for VM image management and caching. Supports both Apple Silicon and Intel Macs. Enables deterministic testing through snapshot-based environment reset between agent runs.
Unique: Implements Lume provider with native macOS VM management including snapshot/restore capabilities for deterministic testing, optimized startup times, and image registry integration. Supports both Apple Silicon and Intel Macs with unified provider interface.
vs alternatives: More efficient than Docker for macOS because Lume uses native virtualization (Virtualization Framework) vs. Docker's slower emulation; snapshot/restore enables faster environment reset vs. full VM recreation.
Provides command-line interface (CLI) for quick-start agent execution, configuration, and testing without writing code. Includes Gradio-based web UI for interactive agent control, real-time monitoring, and trajectory visualization. CLI supports task specification, model selection, environment configuration, and result export. Web UI enables non-technical users to run agents and view execution traces with HUD visualization.
Unique: Implements both CLI and Gradio web UI for agent execution, with CLI supporting quick-start scenarios and web UI enabling interactive control and real-time monitoring with HUD visualization. Reduces barrier to entry for non-technical users.
vs alternatives: More accessible than SDK-only frameworks because CLI and web UI enable non-developers to run agents; Gradio integration provides quick UI prototyping vs. custom web development.
Implements Docker provider for running agents in containerized Linux environments with full isolation. Handles container lifecycle (creation, cleanup), image management, and volume mounting for persistent storage. Supports custom Dockerfiles for environment customization. Provides X11/Wayland display server integration for GUI application interaction. Enables reproducible agent execution across different host systems.
Unique: Implements Docker provider with X11/Wayland display server integration for GUI application interaction, container lifecycle management, and custom Dockerfile support. Enables reproducible agent execution across different host systems with container isolation.
vs alternatives: More lightweight than VMs because Docker uses container isolation vs. full virtualization; X11 integration enables GUI application support vs. headless-only alternatives.
Implements Windows Sandbox provider for isolated agent execution on Windows 10/11 Pro/Enterprise, and host provider for direct OS execution. Windows Sandbox provider creates ephemeral sandboxed environments with automatic cleanup. Host provider enables direct agent execution on live Windows system without isolation. Both providers support native Windows input simulation (SendInput API) and clipboard operations. Handles Windows-specific action execution (window management, registry access).
Unique: Implements both Windows Sandbox provider (ephemeral isolated environments with automatic cleanup) and host provider (direct OS execution) with native Windows input simulation (SendInput API) and clipboard support. Handles Windows-specific action execution including window management.
vs alternatives: Windows Sandbox provides better isolation than host execution while avoiding VM overhead; native SendInput API enables more reliable input simulation than generic input methods.
Implements comprehensive telemetry and logging infrastructure capturing agent execution metrics (latency, token usage, action success rate), errors, and performance data. Supports structured logging with contextual information (task ID, agent ID, timestamp). Integrates with external monitoring systems (e.g., Datadog, CloudWatch) for centralized observability. Provides error categorization and automatic error recovery suggestions. Enables debugging through detailed execution logs with configurable verbosity levels.
Unique: Implements structured telemetry and logging system with contextual information (task ID, agent ID, timestamp), error categorization, and automatic error recovery suggestions. Integrates with external monitoring systems for centralized observability.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than basic logging because it captures metrics and structured context; integration with external monitoring enables centralized observability vs. log file analysis.
Implements the core agent loop (screenshot → LLM reasoning → action execution → repeat) via the ComputerAgent class, with pluggable callback system and custom loop support. Developers can override loop behavior at multiple extension points: custom agent loops (modify reasoning/action selection), custom tools (add domain-specific actions), and callback hooks (inject monitoring/logging). Supports both synchronous and asynchronous execution patterns.
Unique: Provides a callback-based extension system with multiple hook points (pre/post action, loop iteration, error handling) and explicit support for custom agent loop subclassing, allowing developers to override core loop logic without forking the framework. Supports both native computer-use models and composed models with grounding adapters.
vs alternatives: More flexible than frameworks with fixed loop logic; callback system enables non-invasive monitoring/logging vs. requiring loop subclassing, while custom loop support accommodates novel agent architectures that standard loops cannot express.
+7 more capabilities
Generates code suggestions as developers type by leveraging OpenAI Codex, a large language model trained on public code repositories. The system integrates directly into editor processes (VS Code, JetBrains, Neovim) via language server protocol extensions, streaming partial completions to the editor buffer with latency-optimized inference. Suggestions are ranked by relevance scoring and filtered based on cursor context, file syntax, and surrounding code patterns.
Unique: Integrates Codex inference directly into editor processes via LSP extensions with streaming partial completions, rather than polling or batch processing. Ranks suggestions using relevance scoring based on file syntax, surrounding context, and cursor position—not just raw model output.
vs alternatives: Faster suggestion latency than Tabnine or IntelliCode for common patterns because Codex was trained on 54M public GitHub repositories, providing broader coverage than alternatives trained on smaller corpora.
Generates complete functions, classes, and multi-file code structures by analyzing docstrings, type hints, and surrounding code context. The system uses Codex to synthesize implementations that match inferred intent from comments and signatures, with support for generating test cases, boilerplate, and entire modules. Context is gathered from the active file, open tabs, and recent edits to maintain consistency with existing code style and patterns.
Unique: Synthesizes multi-file code structures by analyzing docstrings, type hints, and surrounding context to infer developer intent, then generates implementations that match inferred patterns—not just single-line completions. Uses open editor tabs and recent edits to maintain style consistency across generated code.
vs alternatives: Generates more semantically coherent multi-file structures than Tabnine because Codex was trained on complete GitHub repositories with full context, enabling cross-file pattern matching and dependency inference.
cua scores higher at 53/100 vs GitHub Copilot at 27/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Analyzes pull requests and diffs to identify code quality issues, potential bugs, security vulnerabilities, and style inconsistencies. The system reviews changed code against project patterns and best practices, providing inline comments and suggestions for improvement. Analysis includes performance implications, maintainability concerns, and architectural alignment with existing codebase.
Unique: Analyzes pull request diffs against project patterns and best practices, providing inline suggestions with architectural and performance implications—not just style checking or syntax validation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than traditional linters because it understands semantic patterns and architectural concerns, enabling suggestions for design improvements and maintainability enhancements.
Generates comprehensive documentation from source code by analyzing function signatures, docstrings, type hints, and code structure. The system produces documentation in multiple formats (Markdown, HTML, Javadoc, Sphinx) and can generate API documentation, README files, and architecture guides. Documentation is contextualized by language conventions and project structure, with support for customizable templates and styles.
Unique: Generates comprehensive documentation in multiple formats by analyzing code structure, docstrings, and type hints, producing contextualized documentation for different audiences—not just extracting comments.
vs alternatives: More flexible than static documentation generators because it understands code semantics and can generate narrative documentation alongside API references, enabling comprehensive documentation from code alone.
Analyzes selected code blocks and generates natural language explanations, docstrings, and inline comments using Codex. The system reverse-engineers intent from code structure, variable names, and control flow, then produces human-readable descriptions in multiple formats (docstrings, markdown, inline comments). Explanations are contextualized by file type, language conventions, and surrounding code patterns.
Unique: Reverse-engineers intent from code structure and generates contextual explanations in multiple formats (docstrings, comments, markdown) by analyzing variable names, control flow, and language-specific conventions—not just summarizing syntax.
vs alternatives: Produces more accurate explanations than generic LLM summarization because Codex was trained specifically on code repositories, enabling it to recognize common patterns, idioms, and domain-specific constructs.
Analyzes code blocks and suggests refactoring opportunities, performance optimizations, and style improvements by comparing against patterns learned from millions of GitHub repositories. The system identifies anti-patterns, suggests idiomatic alternatives, and recommends structural changes (e.g., extracting methods, simplifying conditionals). Suggestions are ranked by impact and complexity, with explanations of why changes improve code quality.
Unique: Suggests refactoring and optimization opportunities by pattern-matching against 54M GitHub repositories, identifying anti-patterns and recommending idiomatic alternatives with ranked impact assessment—not just style corrections.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than traditional linters because it understands semantic patterns and architectural improvements, not just syntax violations, enabling suggestions for structural refactoring and performance optimization.
Generates unit tests, integration tests, and test fixtures by analyzing function signatures, docstrings, and existing test patterns in the codebase. The system synthesizes test cases that cover common scenarios, edge cases, and error conditions, using Codex to infer expected behavior from code structure. Generated tests follow project-specific testing conventions (e.g., Jest, pytest, JUnit) and can be customized with test data or mocking strategies.
Unique: Generates test cases by analyzing function signatures, docstrings, and existing test patterns in the codebase, synthesizing tests that cover common scenarios and edge cases while matching project-specific testing conventions—not just template-based test scaffolding.
vs alternatives: Produces more contextually appropriate tests than generic test generators because it learns testing patterns from the actual project codebase, enabling tests that match existing conventions and infrastructure.
Converts natural language descriptions or pseudocode into executable code by interpreting intent from plain English comments or prompts. The system uses Codex to synthesize code that matches the described behavior, with support for multiple programming languages and frameworks. Context from the active file and project structure informs the translation, ensuring generated code integrates with existing patterns and dependencies.
Unique: Translates natural language descriptions into executable code by inferring intent from plain English comments and synthesizing implementations that integrate with project context and existing patterns—not just template-based code generation.
vs alternatives: More flexible than API documentation or code templates because Codex can interpret arbitrary natural language descriptions and generate custom implementations, enabling developers to express intent in their own words.
+4 more capabilities