Choosing a tool to run coding agents in parallel
The best tool depends on seven things: how it isolates each agent, its licence and source, the platforms it runs on, what it asks of you in accounts and telemetry, which agents it can launch, whether you can review and merge in the same place, and what it costs. Decide which of those you cannot compromise on, and the choice mostly makes itself.
This page names no products, so you can apply it to any shortlist. Disclosure: Agency is ours, and this site is its home. Its own row is given against every criterion below, including the ones where it is the wrong pick. If you want the by-hand method first, start with how to run coding agents in parallel. As of 8 October 2026.
Isolation: worktrees or containers
Two agents in one folder overwrite each other, so every tool has to give each agent its own space. There are two ways. A git worktree is a second checkout of the same repository on its own branch: cheap, fast, and the agent runs on your machine with your tools and credentials. A container or virtual machine is a stronger wall: the agent sees only what you mount into it, and a bad command cannot reach the rest of your system.
Worktrees favour speed, low disk use and agents that need your local toolchain. Containers favour untrusted tasks, strict control over what an agent can reach, and runs that must be reproducible. Many teams want both.
Agency: worktrees. Every run gets its own worktree and branch, and the agent runs on your machine, in a real terminal. Agency does not put agents in containers. If you need that wall, pick a tool built around containers.
Licence and source
Check whether you can read the code, build it yourself and keep using it if the vendor changes course. An open-source licence such as Apache-2.0 or MIT allows all three. A closed-source app gives you a binary and the vendor's promises. Open source favours anyone who wants to audit what runs next to their code, or to fork. Closed source is fine if you trust the vendor and want support and polish more than inspectability.
Agency: Apache-2.0, with the source on GitHub. The name “Agency” is not licensed with the code.
Platforms
Check the operating system and the chip, not just the logo on the download button. A desktop app favours people who work on that desktop and want real terminals and native notifications. A hosted runner favours teams on Windows, on machines the app does not support, or who want agents to keep working while every laptop is closed.
Agency: macOS 11 or later on Apple Silicon (no Intel or universal build), and Linux with glibc 2.34 or later on x86_64 or arm64, as a .deb, .rpm, pacman package or AppImage. Windows is planned, with no build and no date. It is a local desktop app, not a hosted service. See the download page for the exact files.
Account and telemetry
Ask three questions: do you need an account to start, does the tool phone home, and where does your code go. Be careful with the third. Every tool that launches a coding agent hands your prompts and code to that agent's provider, however private the tool itself is. A local tool with no account favours privacy reviews and quick starts. A hosted service favours shared dashboards and central billing, and the price is an account and a vendor that holds your work.
Agency: no first-party data collection: no analytics, no telemetry, no crash reporting, no account and no backend of ours. The agents are third party, so each one talks to its own provider under your credentials, and what you hand an agent goes to that provider. Git talks to your own remotes. The one network request Agency makes itself is an update check against GitHub’s public API for the latest release tag, on launch and every six hours; you can turn it off in Settings. Details are on the privacy page.
Which agents it can launch
Tools differ in whether they run one vendor’s agent, a fixed list, or any command. A single-vendor tool favours a team standardised on one agent. An agent-neutral tool favours anyone who wants to compare agents on the same task or switch when a better one appears.
Agency: eleven are built in: Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot CLI, OpenCode, Gemini CLI, Kimi Code, Crush, Hermes, Pi and DeepSeek Harness. Any other agent you can start from a command line runs too.
Review and merge
Running agents is the easy half. The slow half is reading what each one changed, deciding, and merging. A tool that stops at launching leaves you with a pile of branches to handle in the terminal. Review and merge in the tool favours people running more than two or three agents at a time. Terminal and pull-request review favour teams whose review already happens on a git host, with required checks and approvals that a desktop tool cannot replace.
Agency: a per-run diff, comments you can send back to the agent, merge from the run with conflict resolution in the app. A race sends one prompt to several agents so you can keep the branch you like. It is a single-user desktop app, not a team web dashboard, so shared review stays on your git host.
Cost
There are two bills. One is the tool. The other is the agents behind it, which cost the same whichever tool launches them, and which grow with every extra agent you run at once. Check that a tool’s price does not hide a second charge for the same tokens. A free tool favours individuals and small teams. A paid tool favours teams that want support, a hosted runner or central administration, if they value those enough.
Agency: free, with no paid tier and no account. You pay only for the agents, through whatever plan or API key each one already uses.
Agency’s row against each criterion
| Criterion | Agency | Pick something else if |
|---|---|---|
| Isolation | Git worktree and branch per run, on your machine | You need containers or a virtual machine |
| Licence and source | Apache-2.0, source on GitHub | You want a vendor-supported closed product |
| Platforms | macOS (Apple Silicon) and Linux (x86_64, arm64) | You are on Windows or an Intel Mac, or want a hosted runner |
| Account and telemetry | No account; no first-party data collection; one GitHub update check, which you can turn off | You want a shared team dashboard, which needs an account |
| Agents | Eleven built in, plus any command-line agent | You are standardised on one vendor’s own tool |
| Review and merge | Diff, comments, merge and conflict resolution in the app | Review lives on a git host with required approvals |
| Cost | Free; you pay only for the agents | You want paid support or hosting |
Who should not use Agency: anyone who needs container isolation, Windows, an Intel Mac, a hosted runner or a team web dashboard, and anyone happy in tmux who runs one or two agents at a time.
How to compare named products
This page names none, so it cannot rank them for you. Take your shortlist from an independent directory or list that compares tools side by side, then run each candidate through the seven criteria above and keep the one that satisfies your non-negotiables. Try it on a real task before you commit: install it, run two agents on the same small change, and see how long review and merge take.
Questions
What is the best tool to run multiple coding agents in parallel?
The one whose isolation, platform, privacy and agent support match your constraints. For a solo developer on a Mac or Linux machine who wants a free, open-source desktop app with review and merge built in, Agency fits. For containers, Windows or a hosted runner, it does not.
Do I need containers to run agents in parallel?
No. Worktrees are enough to stop agents overwriting each other’s files. Containers add a wall against what an agent can do to the rest of your system, which matters most when you do not trust the task or the code.
Does the tool I pick change what my agent sends to its provider?
No. The agent talks to its own provider whichever tool launches it. What the tool changes is whether the tool itself adds an account, a backend or telemetry on top.