Conductor vs Stoneforge

Conductor

A tidy control room for developers who already use terminal coding agents and want to run several at once with clean isolation and a review step. It adds orchestration rather than its own model, so you still pay your agent providers. Anyone happy with a single agent in an editor will not gain much.

Pros

• +Free tier with local workspaces and bring-your-own subscriptions or keys
• +Each task isolated in its own workspace and branch
• +Supports Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and OpenCode agents
• +SOC 2 Type II badge shown on the site

Cons

• −Desktop app is Mac-only
• −Cloud workspaces need the paid Pro plan
• −Cloud compute pricing is expected to move to usage-based billing

Stoneforge

Stoneforge fits developers who already use coding agents and want several working at once without merge chaos. The worktree-per-worker model and the automatic merge review do the heavy lifting. It is new, from a very small team, so it suits experimenters more than organisations that need vendor support.

Pros

• +Each worker has its own git worktree, which avoids most merge conflicts
• +Dependency-aware dispatch stops two agents taking the same task
• +Works with Claude Code, Codex and OpenCode and syncs with GitHub, Linear and Notion
• +Free under the Apache-2.0 licence

Cons

• −Created in early 2026, so the track record is short
• −Runs locally and has no hosted option
• −Agent usage costs from the connected providers still add up

Is Conductor cheaper than Stoneforge?

Stoneforge is free to use; Conductor starts at $50/mo.

Does Conductor or Stoneforge have a free tier?

Both: Conductor has a free tier, and Stoneforge is free to use.

Which has a public API, Conductor or Stoneforge?

Conductor ships a public API, as of our last verification. A public API for Stoneforge is not confirmed by us — check its developer docs before you plan an integration.