opencode-glm-quota vs IntelliCode
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | opencode-glm-quota | IntelliCode |
|---|---|---|
| Type | MCP Server | Extension |
| UnfragileRank | 28/100 | 39/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 1 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem |
| 1 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Fetches real-time quota consumption metrics from Z.ai's GLM Coding Plan API, parsing structured usage data including total quota limits, consumed tokens, remaining capacity, and plan tier information. Implements MCP server protocol to expose quota endpoints as standardized tools callable from OpenCode IDE, abstracting authentication and API versioning details behind a unified interface.
Unique: Exposes Z.ai GLM quota as native MCP tools within OpenCode IDE rather than requiring separate dashboard access, enabling quota checks as part of the development workflow without context switching. Implements Z.ai-specific quota schema parsing rather than generic usage APIs.
vs alternatives: Tighter IDE integration than checking Z.ai web dashboard manually, and more specific to GLM Coding Plans than generic cloud cost monitoring tools like CloudZero or Kubecost
Disaggregates quota consumption by individual GLM model variants (e.g., GLM-4, GLM-3.5-turbo), returning per-model token counts and cost attribution. Queries Z.ai's usage analytics API with model filtering parameters and aggregates results into a structured breakdown, enabling developers to identify which models are consuming quota most heavily.
Unique: Provides GLM model-specific disaggregation rather than treating quota as a monolithic pool, leveraging Z.ai's native usage analytics API to attribute consumption to individual model variants with cost mapping.
vs alternatives: More granular than generic cloud billing tools, and specific to GLM model economics rather than generic LLM cost tracking
Collects and aggregates statistics on which MCP tools (function calls) are consuming quota within the Z.ai GLM Coding Plan, returning call counts, average token consumption per tool, and total quota attribution. Implements tool-level telemetry collection by intercepting MCP function call invocations and correlating them with Z.ai API usage logs.
Unique: Correlates MCP tool invocations with Z.ai quota consumption at the tool level, providing visibility into which integrations are most expensive rather than treating all tool calls as equivalent. Implements telemetry collection at the MCP protocol layer.
vs alternatives: More specific to MCP tool economics than generic function call profiling, and integrated into the OpenCode workflow rather than requiring external observability tools
Allows developers to set custom warning thresholds (e.g., alert when 80% of quota is consumed) and receive notifications when consumption crosses those thresholds. Implements a polling-based monitor that periodically queries current quota usage and compares against configured thresholds, triggering IDE notifications or webhook callbacks when limits are approached.
Unique: Integrates quota alerting directly into the OpenCode IDE workflow with configurable thresholds and multi-channel notification support, rather than requiring separate monitoring dashboards. Implements client-side threshold logic rather than relying on Z.ai server-side alerts.
vs alternatives: More proactive than manual dashboard checks, and more integrated than generic cloud cost monitoring alerts because it's aware of GLM Coding Plan semantics
Analyzes historical quota consumption patterns over configurable time windows (7 days, 30 days) and projects forward to estimate when quota will be exhausted at current burn rate. Implements time-series analysis by fetching historical usage snapshots from Z.ai API, fitting a linear or exponential regression model, and computing projected depletion date with confidence intervals.
Unique: Applies time-series forecasting to GLM quota consumption rather than treating usage as a static snapshot, enabling proactive quota management. Implements regression-based projection with confidence intervals rather than naive linear extrapolation.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple 'days remaining' calculations, and specific to GLM quota semantics rather than generic cloud cost forecasting
Provides IntelliSense completions ranked by a machine learning model trained on patterns from thousands of open-source repositories. The model learns which completions are most contextually relevant based on code patterns, variable names, and surrounding context, surfacing the most probable next token with a star indicator in the VS Code completion menu. This differs from simple frequency-based ranking by incorporating semantic understanding of code context.
Unique: Uses a neural model trained on open-source repository patterns to rank completions by likelihood rather than simple frequency or alphabetical ordering; the star indicator explicitly surfaces the top recommendation, making it discoverable without scrolling
vs alternatives: Faster than Copilot for single-token completions because it leverages lightweight ranking rather than full generative inference, and more transparent than generic IntelliSense because starred recommendations are explicitly marked
Ingests and learns from patterns across thousands of open-source repositories across Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, and Java to build a statistical model of common code patterns, API usage, and naming conventions. This model is baked into the extension and used to contextualize all completion suggestions. The learning happens offline during model training; the extension itself consumes the pre-trained model without further learning from user code.
Unique: Explicitly trained on thousands of public repositories to extract statistical patterns of idiomatic code; this training is transparent (Microsoft publishes which repos are included) and the model is frozen at extension release time, ensuring reproducibility and auditability
vs alternatives: More transparent than proprietary models because training data sources are disclosed; more focused on pattern matching than Copilot, which generates novel code, making it lighter-weight and faster for completion ranking
IntelliCode scores higher at 39/100 vs opencode-glm-quota at 28/100. opencode-glm-quota leads on ecosystem, while IntelliCode is stronger on adoption and quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Analyzes the immediate code context (variable names, function signatures, imported modules, class scope) to rank completions contextually rather than globally. The model considers what symbols are in scope, what types are expected, and what the surrounding code is doing to adjust the ranking of suggestions. This is implemented by passing a window of surrounding code (typically 50-200 tokens) to the inference model along with the completion request.
Unique: Incorporates local code context (variable names, types, scope) into the ranking model rather than treating each completion request in isolation; this is done by passing a fixed-size context window to the neural model, enabling scope-aware ranking without full semantic analysis
vs alternatives: More accurate than frequency-based ranking because it considers what's in scope; lighter-weight than full type inference because it uses syntactic context and learned patterns rather than building a complete type graph
Integrates ranked completions directly into VS Code's native IntelliSense menu by adding a star (★) indicator next to the top-ranked suggestion. This is implemented as a custom completion item provider that hooks into VS Code's CompletionItemProvider API, allowing IntelliCode to inject its ranked suggestions alongside built-in language server completions. The star is a visual affordance that makes the recommendation discoverable without requiring the user to change their completion workflow.
Unique: Uses VS Code's CompletionItemProvider API to inject ranked suggestions directly into the native IntelliSense menu with a star indicator, avoiding the need for a separate UI panel or modal and keeping the completion workflow unchanged
vs alternatives: More seamless than Copilot's separate suggestion panel because it integrates into the existing IntelliSense menu; more discoverable than silent ranking because the star makes the recommendation explicit
Maintains separate, language-specific neural models trained on repositories in each supported language (Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, Java). Each model is optimized for the syntax, idioms, and common patterns of its language. The extension detects the file language and routes completion requests to the appropriate model. This allows for more accurate recommendations than a single multi-language model because each model learns language-specific patterns.
Unique: Trains and deploys separate neural models per language rather than a single multi-language model, allowing each model to specialize in language-specific syntax, idioms, and conventions; this is more complex to maintain but produces more accurate recommendations than a generalist approach
vs alternatives: More accurate than single-model approaches like Copilot's base model because each language model is optimized for its domain; more maintainable than rule-based systems because patterns are learned rather than hand-coded
Executes the completion ranking model on Microsoft's servers rather than locally on the user's machine. When a completion request is triggered, the extension sends the code context and cursor position to Microsoft's inference service, which runs the model and returns ranked suggestions. This approach allows for larger, more sophisticated models than would be practical to ship with the extension, and enables model updates without requiring users to download new extension versions.
Unique: Offloads model inference to Microsoft's cloud infrastructure rather than running locally, enabling larger models and automatic updates but requiring internet connectivity and accepting privacy tradeoffs of sending code context to external servers
vs alternatives: More sophisticated models than local approaches because server-side inference can use larger, slower models; more convenient than self-hosted solutions because no infrastructure setup is required, but less private than local-only alternatives
Learns and recommends common API and library usage patterns from open-source repositories. When a developer starts typing a method call or API usage, the model ranks suggestions based on how that API is typically used in the training data. For example, if a developer types `requests.get(`, the model will rank common parameters like `url=` and `timeout=` based on frequency in the training corpus. This is implemented by training the model on API call sequences and parameter patterns extracted from the training repositories.
Unique: Extracts and learns API usage patterns (parameter names, method chains, common argument values) from open-source repositories, allowing the model to recommend not just what methods exist but how they are typically used in practice
vs alternatives: More practical than static documentation because it shows real-world usage patterns; more accurate than generic completion because it ranks by actual usage frequency in the training data