cc-haha vs OmO
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
Short answer
- OmO is growing faster: +1,005 GitHub stars in the last 30 days vs +540 for cc-haha.
- Pick cc-haha for: cross-platform desktop workspace for Claude Code with multi-agent sessions, Git worktrees, and diff review. Pick OmO for: omO: Just type "mass ulw" keyword with your prompt.
From GitHub data refreshed daily.
c
cc-hahaopen-source
Cross-platform desktop workspace for Claude Code with multi-agent sessions, Git worktrees, and diff review
O
OmOopen-source
OmO: Just type "mass ulw" keyword with your prompt. Now you are the master of graph engineering.
Metrics
| cc-haha | OmO | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 14.8k | 69.8k |
| Star velocity /mo | 540 | 1.0k |
| Commits (90d) | 878 | 9.4k |
| Releases (6m) | 10 | 10 |
| Overall score | 0.838847826686706 | 0.9105351293499632 |
FAQ
- Which is more popular, cc-haha or OmO?
- OmO has more GitHub stars (69,754 vs 14,829).
- Which is more actively developed, cc-haha or OmO?
- OmO had more commits in the last 90 days (9,367 vs 878).
- Should I use cc-haha or OmO?
- Compare their capabilities, limitations and "best for" notes above. Both are open source, so trying each on a small task is the fastest way to decide.