AI & Agents AI Coding Agents & Developer Tools

Copilot Fusion vs 5 AI Coding Agents in 2026

GitHub made Copilot Fusion, a layer that routes each coding task across several models, generally available on October 28, 2026. Here is how it compares with Claude Code, Cursor, OpenAI Codex, Devin Fusion and Google's Antigravity CLI.

By Arthur R. Published October 29, 2026 Updated October 29, 2026 9 min read

Illustration: Innvesti (AI-generated)

Quick answer

GitHub Copilot Fusion, generally available since October 28, 2026, routes each coding prompt to one model or several instead of making the developer pick. On Artificial Analysis's Coding Agent Index it scored 60, within two points of Claude Code with Opus 5.5 at Max, at about half the measured cost per task. Claude Code, Cursor, Codex and Devin Fusion remain stronger choices for specific workflows.

Key takeaways

Copilot Fusion is an orchestration layer, not a model: per GitHub, it picks one of three patterns per task (single model, cascade from a cheap model to a stronger one, or critique where a second model reviews the first) at Standard, High or Max effort.
In the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, as reported by VentureBeat, Fusion Max scored 60 against about 62 for Claude Code with Opus 5.5 Max, at $5.59 per task versus $11.42.
GitHub's claim that Fusion Max finished about 40% faster than Claude Code is GitHub's own; VentureBeat reports Artificial Analysis did not publish timing data to confirm it.
Fusion bills each model it uses at that model's standard rate, with a temporary 30% discount on model costs for paid Copilot plans, so cost is metered rather than a flat price.
Routing is now a feature in several tools: Cursor routes on Teams and Enterprise only, Cognition's Devin Fusion pairs a lead model with a cheaper sidekick, and Claude Code and Codex stay tied to one vendor's models.

Oct 28, 2026

Copilot Fusion generally available (GitHub changelog; VentureBeat)

60 vs ~62

Coding Agent Index score, Fusion Max vs Claude Code with Opus 5.5 Max (Artificial Analysis, via VentureBeat)

$5.59 vs $11.42

Average cost per task, Fusion Max vs Claude Code with Opus 5.5 (Artificial Analysis, via VentureBeat)

30%

Temporary discount on model costs when paid Copilot plans use Fusion (GitHub changelog)

GitHub Copilot Fusion, generally available since October 28, 2026, is an AI coding orchestration layer that routes each task to one or more models, and an independent benchmark puts it within about two points of Claude Code at roughly half the cost per task. It is not the top scorer in that test, so the real question is what you are optimizing for.

According to GitHub, you pick an effort level and Fusion chooses how to run the task. VentureBeat’s report of the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index has Fusion Max at 60, Claude Code with Opus 5.5 Max at about 62 and Devin Fusion at 62, with average costs of $5.59, $11.42 and $8.00 per task. This report compares Fusion with five alternatives and says where each one wins.

Routing is becoming a feature, not a model choice

Until recently, picking a coding agent meant picking a vendor’s models. Fusion, Cursor’s Router and Devin Fusion now make that choice for you. GitHub describes three patterns: one model completes the task; a cheap model drafts and a quality check either accepts it or escalates; or one model drafts, another reviews and the first revises. Cognition describes a similar split between a lead model that plans and reviews and a sidekick that does mechanical work.

What the numbers do and do not show

The benchmark result is a single run reported by a third party. VentureBeat notes the benchmark’s categories: Fusion led Terminal-Bench 4.0 with 71 but scored 51 on FrontierCode against 56 for Claude Code and 54 for Devin Fusion. GitHub’s claim of a 40% speed advantage is not backed by published timing data, and a separate “up to 77%” savings figure cited by Microsoft’s chief executive comes from a GitHub-run evaluation, not the independent test. We read Artificial Analysis’s public coding-agent page on October 29 and it displayed no scores, so we could not check the figures at the source.

Which tool fits whom

Teams already paying for Copilot, with admin model policies, have the least to lose by trying Fusion, since it only uses models the organization has enabled. Developers who want the highest measured quality and a flat monthly plan are better served by Claude Code, accepting a higher cost per task. Cursor suits people who live in the editor, but its model routing is for Teams and Enterprise, not individual plans. Codex is the natural pick for existing ChatGPT subscribers. Devin Fusion is the closest design match to GitHub’s, and Cognition is more candid about where delegation fails.

Cost is metered, so test it yourself

Fusion bills each model at its standard rate, and the 30% discount is limited-time. A cheaper average cost per task in a benchmark does not guarantee a cheaper bill on your codebase, because task difficulty decides how often Fusion escalates to a stronger model. Run the same ten real tickets through two tools and compare the invoices.

1. GitHub Copilot Fusion

Best for teams already on Copilot who want cost control without choosing models

Copilot Fusion became generally available on October 28, 2026 in VS Code, the GitHub Copilot app, Copilot CLI and JetBrains IDEs, on all Copilot plans. You choose an effort level (Standard, High or Max) and Fusion decides per task whether one model is enough, whether a cheap model should draft with a quality check that can escalate, or whether one model should critique another's draft. Per VentureBeat, its model pool includes Claude Opus 5.5, Claude Sonnet 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and GPT-6 Sol. Admins can limit Fusion to models enabled in organization policy. Billing follows each underlying model's standard rate, with a limited-time 30% discount on model costs for paid plans.

Pros

Independent benchmark result (Artificial Analysis, via VentureBeat) of 60, close to Claude Code with Opus 5.5 Max, at roughly half the measured cost per task
Works across several models and across VS Code, the CLI and JetBrains, with admin model policies respected
Switches from picking models to picking an effort level, which is easier to govern in a team

Cons

Metered per-model billing makes monthly cost harder to predict than a flat plan
GitHub's 40% speed claim is unconfirmed by the independent benchmark
On the FrontierCode component Fusion scored 51 against 56 for Claude Code, so it does not lead everywhere

2. Claude Code

Best for the highest measured quality on hard tasks

Claude Code is Anthropic's coding agent and the main comparison point in GitHub's and VentureBeat's Fusion reporting. With Opus 5.5 at Max it scored about 62 on the Coding Agent Index against Fusion Max's 60, but at $11.42 per task versus $5.59. It is included in all paid Claude plans: Pro at $20 per month ($17 on annual billing), Max from $100 per month, and Team seats at $20 or $25 for Standard. Usage is limited on a rolling five-hour window plus weekly limits, shared with Claude chat, and extra usage can be bought at API rates. It uses Anthropic models only, so there is no cross-vendor routing.

Pros

Roughly two points ahead of Fusion Max on the index, and ahead on FrontierCode (56 vs 51)
Flat monthly plans with usage windows, easier to budget than metered billing
Included in every paid Claude plan

Cons

Higher measured cost per task than Fusion Max in the same benchmark
Limited to Anthropic models
Terminal and chat share one usage pool

3. Cursor

Best for an editor-first workflow with its own models

Cursor combines an editor with its own models (Composer 2.5 and the Grok family, per its docs) and pass-through access to Claude, GPT and Gemini. Its Auto feature has three modes, Cost, Balance and Intelligence. Per Cursor's docs, Balance and Intelligence work through Cursor Router, which is available on Teams and Enterprise, while individual plans have Cost mode only. Individual tiers run from a free plan through Plus at $8 per month up to Ultra at $200, as listed on the docs page we read on October 29, 2026. Third-party models are billed at API list price from prepaid credit on Premium and above.

Pros

Own models draw from a weekly pool that refreshes, so one heavy day does not drain the month
Router and Auto modes give routing similar in spirit to Fusion
Wide model choice including Claude, GPT and Gemini

Cons

Smart routing is limited to Teams and Enterprise; individuals get Cost mode only
Third-party model usage is billed separately at API price
We found no independent Coding Agent Index score for Cursor's routing

4. OpenAI Codex

Best for ChatGPT subscribers who want coding bundled in

Codex is included in ChatGPT plans from Free through Enterprise. Per OpenAI's pricing page, Go costs $8 per month, Plus $20, Pro from $100, and Business $20 per user on annual billing. Plus limits are listed as estimated local messages per five-hour window and vary by model, for example 5 to 45 for GPT-6 Astra and 350 to 3,000 for GPT-6 Luna. An API key option bills at API rates. It runs OpenAI models only, so like Claude Code it does not route across vendors.

Pros

Low entry price and a free tier with a small model
Model tiers let you trade message count against capability
API-key option for pay-per-token use

Cons

OpenAI models only
Limits on Plus are expressed as wide ranges that depend on task size
No Fusion-style automatic orchestration across models

5. Devin Fusion (Cognition)

Best for a planner-plus-executor agent approach

Cognition announced Devin Fusion on June 29, 2026, four months before GitHub's Fusion. A main agent plans and reviews while a cheaper sidekick explores code, writes tests and fixes lint, each with its own cached context, and classifiers can escalate or swap models mid-task. Cognition's own FrontierCode benchmark showed about 35% lower cost, which independent testing has not confirmed. VentureBeat's report puts Devin Fusion at about 62 on the Coding Agent Index at $8.00 per task. Devin's pricing page lists Free, Pro at $20 per month, Max at $200, and Teams at $80 per month plus $40 per full developer seat.

Pros

About 62 on the independent index, level with Claude Code
Cost per task of $8.00 sits between Fusion Max and Claude Code in the reported run
Cognition openly documents where delegation hurts, such as a front-end task dropping from 54 to 27

Cons

Fusion's architecture details come from secondary coverage rather than Cognition's own post
Runs inside Devin products only
Delegation can reduce quality on judgment-heavy work, per Cognition's own results

6. Antigravity CLI (Google)

Best for developers in Google's ecosystem

Google launched Antigravity CLI on May 19, 2026 as the successor to Gemini CLI, which stopped serving free, Google AI Pro and Google AI Ultra accounts on June 18, 2026 according to coverage of Google's transition notice. Third-party trackers describe its default model as Gemini 3.5 Flash with support for other models, but they disagree on pricing and quotas, so check Google's own page before committing. We found no Coding Agent Index result for it and no routing feature comparable to Fusion.

Pros

First-party Google agent tied to Gemini models and Google AI plans
Replaces Gemini CLI with a maintained successor

Cons

Pricing and quotas are inconsistent across the sources we found
No independent benchmark result found
No cross-vendor orchestration feature

Copilot Fusion vs 5 AI Coding Agents in 2026 — comparison
Tool	How it picks models	Pricing model	Independent index result	Best for
GitHub Copilot Fusion	Routes per task: single, cascade or critique	Each model at its standard rate; 30% temporary discount on paid plans	60 (Fusion Max), $5.59 per task	Copilot teams wanting automatic routing
Claude Code	You pick; Anthropic models	Claude plans, Pro $20 to Max from $100, plus API-rate extra usage	About 62 with Opus 5.5 Max, $11.42 per task	Hardest tasks
Cursor	Auto modes; Router on Teams and Enterprise only	Plus $8 to Ultra $200; third-party models at API price	None found	Editor-first developers
OpenAI Codex	You pick; OpenAI models	ChatGPT plans from Free; Plus $20; Pro from $100	None found	ChatGPT subscribers
Devin Fusion	Lead model plus cheaper sidekick, with escalation	Devin plans: Free, Pro $20, Max $200, Teams $80 plus $40 per seat	About 62, $8.00 per task	Planner-plus-executor workflows
Antigravity CLI	Gemini models; no routing found	Unclear across sources	None found	Google ecosystem

Frequently asked questions

What is GitHub Copilot Fusion?

Copilot Fusion is a model option in GitHub Copilot, generally available since October 28, 2026. Instead of choosing a model, you choose an effort level (Standard, High or Max) and Fusion routes each task to one model or coordinates several, using single, cascade or critique patterns.

Is Copilot Fusion better than Claude Code?

On the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index as reported by VentureBeat, Fusion Max scored 60 against about 62 for Claude Code with Opus 5.5 Max, at roughly half the cost per task. Claude Code scored higher overall and on FrontierCode, so neither is strictly better.

How much does Copilot Fusion cost?

GitHub says you pay each underlying model's standard rate for the calls Fusion makes, and paid Copilot plans get a limited-time 30% discount on model costs. VentureBeat adds that eligible Enterprise Cloud customers can pay metered usage from an enterprise budget.

Which Copilot clients support Fusion?

VS Code, the GitHub Copilot app, Copilot CLI and JetBrains IDEs, with other clients listed as coming soon.

Does Cursor have an equivalent to Fusion?

Partly. Cursor's Auto has Cost, Balance and Intelligence modes, but its docs say Balance and Intelligence work through Cursor Router on Teams and Enterprise, and individual plans have Cost mode only.

Is the 40% speed advantage real?

GitHub reports Fusion Max finished about 40% faster than the Claude Code configuration, but VentureBeat notes that Artificial Analysis did not publish timing data, so the figure is unconfirmed.

How we evaluated

We started from GitHub's October 28, 2026 changelog and checked the benchmark and pricing details against VentureBeat's independent report. We then chose the coding agents a developer would realistically weigh against Fusion and read each vendor's pricing or documentation page on October 29, 2026. Where a vendor page was unavailable, we say so and attribute the figure to a secondary source. We did not test any tool hands-on. Benchmark numbers come from a single Artificial Analysis run reported by VentureBeat, and Artificial Analysis's own public page did not show these values when we opened it. Rankings weigh independent measured quality and cost, then pricing transparency, then fit across team sizes.

Independent benchmark quality and cost per task, where available
How the tool chooses or routes between models
Pricing transparency and predictability
Client and team-policy support

Innvesti may have commercial relationships with some companies mentioned. Our analysis is editorially independent. Figures cited are sourced; where reliable data is unavailable we say so rather than estimate.

Key takeaways

Routing is becoming a feature, not a model choice

What the numbers do and do not show

Which tool fits whom

Cost is metered, so test it yourself

1. GitHub Copilot Fusion

Pros

Cons

2. Claude Code

Pros

Cons

3. Cursor

Pros

Cons

4. OpenAI Codex

Pros

Cons

5. Devin Fusion (Cognition)

Pros

Cons

6. Antigravity CLI (Google)

Pros

Cons

Frequently asked questions

How we evaluated

Sources