DevinvsContinuevsRoo Code

3 agents, 3 evaluations — 0 community and 3 editorial — compared across overall score, task fit, reliability, cost, ease of setup, and drift over time.

Current verdict: Devin currently leads Continue by 0.8 points on Ruling's 10-point scale; confirm the top-review context before shortlisting.

Current signal

last 90 days

Freshness

2 of 3 loaded evaluations are from the last 90 days

Version context

reviews now ask model/runtime and tier

AI-agent quality changes with model releases, CLI/client updates, pricing limits, and vendor defaults. Treat all-time scores as historical context; prioritize recent reviews and model/runtime notes before standardizing on a tool.

ruling.so/compare/devin-vs-continue-vs-roo-code

New comparison Add review

Overall scoreaggregate · 1–10

Devin

Cognition · Coding Agents

7.6/10

Continue

Continue · Coding Agents

6.8/10

Roo Code

Roo Code · Coding Agents

3.6/10

Add agent

Scorecard

Winners are highlighted only when comparable review-derived scores exist.

3 evaluations considered

Overall

Weighted aggregate verdict across the review.

7.6/10

3.8/5 source average.

6.8/10

3.4/5 source average.

3.6/10

1.8/5 source average.

review avg

Task fit

How well the agent matches the job users hired it for.

8.0/10

4.0/5 source average.

7.6/10

3.8/5 source average.

3.0/10

1.5/5 source average.

review avg

Reliability

Consistency, uptime, and repeatability under real workflows.

7.0/10

3.5/5 source average.

6.4/10

3.2/5 source average.

2.4/10

1.2/5 source average.

review avg

Ease of setup

How quickly teams can get from signup to useful output.

8.2/10

4.1/5 source average.

6.6/10

3.3/5 source average.

2.0/10

1.0/5 source average.

review avg

Cost efficiency

Whether the results justify the seat, usage, or platform cost.

6.0/10

3.0/5 source average.

9.4/10

4.7/5 source average.

4.0/10

2.0/5 source average.

review avg

Drift score

How well quality holds up over longer sessions and releases.

7.4/10

3.7/5 source average.

6.2/10

3.1/5 source average.

2.0/10

1.0/5 source average.

review avg

At a glance

A truthful, data-backed summary of where each agent stands today.

Devin

Cognition · Coding Agents

Top score

Devin was the first publicly announced "AI software engineer," capable of planning and executing full engineering tasks across a sandboxed environment with browser, terminal, and code editor. While early demos generated enormous hype, real-world users report it excels at well-scoped tasks but struggles with ambiguous requirements. Controversy around its benchmark claims makes it one of the most debated agents on the platform.

Best signalUseful for scoped engineering tickets, but not a replacement engineer

Continue

Continue · Coding Agents

Continue is an open-source coding agent for VS Code, JetBrains, and CLI workflows. Its official repository is now read-only after the final 2.0.0 release, so it remains useful as inspectable software but is no longer under active upstream development.

Best signalA configurable open-source agent with a maintenance ceiling

Roo Code

Roo Code · Coding Agents

Roo Code was an open-source VS Code coding-agent extension with specialized modes and MCP support. The official extension shut down on May 15, 2026, and its archived repository should not be confused with the separate Roomote product now presented at roocode.com.

Best signalHistorically flexible, but no longer an adoption candidate

Pricing and specs

Static facts from the Ruling catalog, not prototype estimates.

Top review for each

Most helpful published review per agent, pulled from current Ruling data.

Browse all reviews →

Top review↓ most helpful

Ruling Editorial — Engineering

Ruling editorial benchmark · older signal · Mar 7, 2026

Useful for scoped engineering tickets, but not a replacement engineer

Ruling editorial benchmark: Devin is strongest when the ticket is narrow, the repo is accessible, and success can be checked with clear tests or acceptance criteria. It is less reliable when the task requires product judgment or deep organizational context. The product is important to benchmark because it defines the autonomous-software-engineer category, but buyers should evaluate output quality against cost carefully.

↑ 24 found helpfulRead →

Ruling Editorial — Engineering

Ruling editorial benchmark · last 30 days

A configurable open-source agent with a maintenance ceiling

Ruling editorial benchmark: Continue still offers agent, chat, edit, autocomplete, and CLI workflows across VS Code and JetBrains. Its Apache-licensed code and customizable setup suit teams that prioritize control over a turnkey vendor experience. The official repository is now read-only after its final 2.0.0 release, so buyers should not plan around active upstream development.

↑ 19 found helpfulRead →

Ruling Editorial — Engineering

Ruling editorial benchmark · last 30 days

Historically flexible, but no longer an adoption candidate

Ruling editorial benchmark: Roo Code historically offered specialized and custom modes with MCP support for power-user VS Code workflows. Its official repository now states that the extension shut down on May 15, making new adoption and dependable ongoing support poor bets. Teams should evaluate maintained alternatives and should not confuse the current roocode.com Roomote product with the discontinued editor extension.

↑ 20 found helpfulRead →

Adjacent matchups

If you are comparing these agents, these nearby alternatives are worth opening next.

/compare/devin-vs-claude-code

Claude Code leads by 2.0 on current Ruling scores; compare it against Devin before shortlisting.

2 reviews

/compare/devin-vs-cursor

Cursor leads by 1.8 on current Ruling scores; compare it against Devin before shortlisting.

2 reviews

/compare/devin-vs-codex-cli

Codex CLI leads by 1.6 on current Ruling scores; compare it against Devin before shortlisting.

2 reviews

Share this comparison

Send the URL to teammates when you need a compact, review-backed agent shortlist.

/compare/devin-vs-continue-vs-roo-code

Build another comparison