Kiro vs Claude Code

Kiro CLI and Claude Code are both terminal agents that plan, edit files, and run commands. The difference is that Claude Code treats the agent and the conversation as the whole product, while Kiro treats the written plan as the product and puts an agent around it.

If you already live in the terminal, this is the closest of the four comparisons on this site. The overview page places both alongside Cursor and Copilot.

At a glance

Kiro facts here were checked against kiro.dev on 4 September 2026. Claude Code facts were reviewed from secondary sources on 27 August 2026 and are conceptual, not a current spec sheet.

	Kiro	Claude Code
Philosophy	The plan is a first-class artifact	The agent is the product
Where it runs	IDE, CLI, Web, Mobile (iOS preview), Crew	Terminal-first, plus desktop, web, and IDE extensions
Planning model	Specs by default: requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md	Conversational; no enforced planning step
Project memory / rules	Steering files in .kiro/steering/, plus AGENTS.md	Not covered by this site’s verified notes; see claude.com
Automation	Hooks on file events, Web Automations on a schedule, headless CLI in CI	Hooks
Extensibility	MCP, powers, skills, custom agents	MCP, skills
Models	Claude, OpenAI GPT-5.6, open-weight, plus an Auto router	Claude models only
Pricing	Credits: Free $0 | Pro $20 | Pro+ $40 | Pro Max $100 | Power $200 (4 Sep 2026)	Claude subscription $20 to $200, shared with the Claude apps, plus a pay-per-token API path (27 Aug 2026)
Best for	Teams that want the intent written down and reviewed	Terminal purists already paying for Claude

Where Kiro is different

Specs in the terminal, not just the IDE. Kiro CLI runs the full spec workflow. /spec new walks you through a guided description step before requirements are generated, and since CLI v2.20.0 /spec run opens a full-screen task execution view with real-time progress and task scope selection. Ctrl+X at a spec phase checkpoint opens the phase document in place so you can stage line comments. Nothing on this site’s verified Claude Code notes covers an equivalent, so treat specs as Kiro’s own answer to “how do I stop the agent building the wrong thing”.

Steering as committed files. Steering files carry your conventions and the reasons behind them. They live in .kiro/steering/, they are reviewed like code, and inclusion modes (always, fileMatch, manual, auto) keep irrelevant rules out of unrelated conversations. AGENTS.md files load too, from anywhere in the tree, and are always included. If your team already keeps an AGENTS.md, that file works as steering on day one.

Powers. A power is not another word for a skill. It bundles a POWER.md steering file that tells the agent which MCP tools it now has and when to use them, an MCP server config, and optional steering or hooks. Powers load on demand when keywords match, which keeps a pile of specialized tools out of every session’s context. Launch partners included Stripe, Supabase, Figma, Neon, Netlify, Datadog, Dynatrace, and Postman. Since August 2026 they ship in the open Agent Plugin format. Try adding one.

Skills exist here too. Kiro follows the open Agent Skills standard: a SKILL.md with a name and description in YAML front matter, discovered at session start and activated by description match or as /skill-name. So “powers versus skills” is the wrong axis. Kiro has both, and Skills explains where each fits.

Cloud sessions and five surfaces. A cloud session runs the agent in a managed AWS sandbox. Start one from the CLI with kiro-cli --cloud, attach a repository with --repo, close the laptop, then reattach from any machine with --resume-id. The IDE, Web, the iOS app, and Kiro Crew all see the same account-level sessions. Recipe: start a cloud session from the CLI.

Kiro Web and Kiro Crew. Kiro Web left preview on 1 September 2026, is available on Pro and above, works with GitHub and GitLab, and returns pull requests; Automations run a task hourly, daily, or on CRON with nobody at the keyboard. Kiro Crew is an open-source persistent agent under Apache 2.0 that runs on hardware you own, with memory, scheduled jobs, subagents, and an app store, reachable through Slack, Discord, Telegram, and more. Recipe: run Kiro Crew 24/7.

Model choice with a visible price. Kiro offers Claude models, OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna, several open-weight models, and an Auto router. Each carries a credit multiplier, so choosing Luna at 0.1x instead of Opus 5 at 2.2x changes a bulk job’s cost by more than twenty times. You can also set reasoning effort from low to max per session, workspace, or user.

Where Claude Code is different

Only the facts this site verified on 27 August 2026 appear here.

Terminal-first by design, with no bundled editor. You keep whichever editor you already like and the agent lives beside it. There are desktop, web, and IDE-extension surfaces as well, but the terminal is the home.

Deep autonomy. It leans hard into long, multi-step runs, and by reputation it is the most autonomous terminal agent of the four tools this site compares.

One subscription across everything Anthropic. A single Claude subscription, Pro at $20 per month through Max at $200 per month with team plans and a pay-per-token API alongside, covers both Claude Code and the Claude apps out of one usage budget. If you already pay for Claude for writing and research, the marginal cost of the coding agent is zero.

Claude models only. That is a limitation and a simplification. There is no model-selection decision to get wrong, and no multiplier arithmetic. If you have decided Claude models are what you want, one less choice is a feature.

MCP, skills, and hooks. The extension surface is real and overlaps with Kiro’s, which is why MCP setup carries between them.

Pick Kiro if / Pick Claude Code if

Pick Kiro if:

• You want the plan written down and reviewed before code exists, especially for work other people will maintain.
• You want to choose your model per task and see the cost, or run bulk work on a cheap model.
• Your work spans a terminal, an IDE, a browser, and sometimes a phone, and you want one configuration behind all of them.
• You want scheduled automation that opens pull requests, or headless runs in CI.
• You need AWS identity (Builder ID, IAM Identity Center), HIPAA eligibility, or ISO/IEC 27001:2022 coverage.
• You want a persistent agent on your own hardware, which is what Kiro Crew is for.

Pick Claude Code if:

• You are a terminal purist and an IDE would only be furniture.
• You already pay for Claude and want the coding agent inside that same budget.
• You are happy on Claude models and do not want a model-selection decision at all.
• You prefer conversation to documents, and a required planning phase would slow you down.

Can you use both?

Yes, and the overlap makes it cheap. Both are terminal tools working on ordinary repositories, both support MCP, so a database or documentation server configured for one takes minutes to configure for the other.

Two honest frictions. Project instructions do not transfer automatically, so keeping your shared house rules in AGENTS.md is the practical way to make one file serve both. And you are paying twice.

A pattern that works: Claude Code for exploratory sessions and quick fixes, Kiro when a change is load-bearing enough to deserve a spec, a steering rule, or a hook. The tools are not fighting for the same minute of your day.

Frequently asked questions

Kiro CLI vs Claude Code: which is better in the terminal?

Both are strong terminal agents, so the question is which posture you want. Kiro CLI gives you specs, steering, hooks, custom agents, skills, powers, a choice of model vendors, and cloud sessions the IDE and web app can attach to. Claude Code gives you a focused, highly autonomous agent on Claude models with one subscription covering the Claude apps too. If you want a written plan, pick Kiro. If you want the leanest possible agent-plus-conversation loop, pick Claude Code.

Should I use Kiro or Claude Code?

Ask what you want left behind after the session ends. Kiro leaves requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md, and steering files that outlive the conversation. Claude Code leaves the code and the transcript. Teams that argue about intent tend to prefer the first; individuals moving fast on their own often prefer the second.

What is the difference between Kiro powers and Claude skills?

They are different categories. Kiro has skills of its own, following the same open Agent Skills standard: a SKILL.md instruction pack that activates when its description matches your request. A Kiro power is a technology bundle instead: POWER.md steering plus an MCP server config, loaded on demand, packaged since August 2026 in the open Agent Plugin format. So the fair comparison is skills to skills, and powers are an extra layer Kiro adds on top.

Can Kiro use Claude models?

Yes. Claude Opus 5, Opus 4.8, 4.7, 4.6, 4.5, and the Sonnet line are all available in Kiro, alongside OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 family and several open-weight models. The Choosing a Model chapter has the full lineup with credit multipliers and context windows.

Which one is cheaper?

It depends on how you already spend. If you pay for Claude anyway, Claude Code adds nothing to the bill. If you do not, the comparison is Kiro’s credit meter against a Claude subscription, and the answer turns on volume. Kiro’s real lever is the model multiplier: a bulk job on a 0.1x model costs a fraction of the same job on a 2.2x model. See Credits and Pricing.

Do they conflict if both are installed?

They are separate programs with separate configuration directories, so no. Kiro keeps its global configuration in ~/.kiro/ (relocatable with KIRO_HOME) and its project configuration in .kiro/. Keeping shared house rules in AGENTS.md at the repository root is the tidiest way to have both read the same instructions.