Compare tools
Pick 2–5 published tools. Values come from our evidence-checked profiles — an em-dash means unknown, never “no”. Ranking rows reflect the current published methodology for the comparison context.
Zed vs Micro
Context: Code Editors · methodology v1.0.0 · 38 rows
Zed
#3 · 79/100 · Ranked
Micro
Not in current ranking
| Attribute | ZedZed Industries | Micromicro-editor |
|---|---|---|
| Identity · Taxonomy | ||
| Documentation | https://zed.dev/docs | — |
| Tags | rust, collaboration, ai, open-source | terminal, lightweight, lua-plugins |
| Platform · Deployment | ||
| Delivery model | desktop | — |
| Desktop apps | Windows, macOS, Linux | — |
| Operating systems | macOS, Linux | — |
| Pricing · Licensing | ||
| Free plan | true | true |
| Free trial | true | — |
| License model | open-source | open-source |
| Open source | true | — |
| Pricing model | free, subscription | free |
| Source repository | https://github.com/zed-industries/zed | https://github.com/micro-editor/micro |
| SPDX license IDs | GPL-3.0-or-later, Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Starting price | 10 | — |
| Trial length | 14 | — |
| Features · Product · Fit | ||
| Core capabilities | High-performance editing built in Rust, Built-in collaboration tools, AI assistance with the Zeta model and agent support, Extension system | Terminal-based editing, Single static binary with no dependencies, Lua plugin system with a plugin manager, Sublime-style multiple cursors, Built-in terminal emulator |
| Api · Integrations · Ecosystem | ||
| API available | true | true |
| CLI | true | true |
| Support · Docs · Services | ||
| Support channels | community | — |
| Audience · Use · Case | ||
| Best for | Developers who want an open-source desktop editor with strong performance, built-in collaboration, and AI features. | Users who want an easy-to-use terminal editor that installs as a single static binary and supports Lua plugins. |
| Company-size fit | individual, SMB, mid-market | — |
| Primary use cases | Individual and collaborative code editing, AI-assisted development | Terminal text editing, Editing on systems where a dependency-free binary is preferred |
| Skill level | intermediate | beginner |
| Lifecycle · Versioning | ||
| Current version | 1.19.2 | 2.0.15 |
| Maintenance status | active | active |
| Vendor · Maintainer | ||
| Official contact | https://zed.dev/support | — |
| Vendor type | commercial | — |
| Ranking factors (current methodology) | ||
| Code Editors — core capability coverage score/100 | 78.0 | — |
| Code Editors — outcome quality score/100 | 82.0 | — |
| Code Editors — advanced workflow depth score/100 | 74.0 | — |
| Code Editors — domain interoperability score/100 | 66.0 | — |
| Code Editors — scale / capacity score/100 | 76.0 | — |
| Usability & adoption/100 | 80.0 | — |
| Reliability & performance/100 | 96.0 | — |
| Security, privacy & compliance/100 | 80.0 | — |
| Interoperability & ecosystem/100 | 62.0 | — |
| Value & total cost/100 | 94.0 | — |
| Support & documentation/100 | 70.0 | — |
| Evidence confidence/100 | 74.0 | — |
“—” means unknown (we never treat missing evidence as a negative). Cells reflect each value's current evidence state; superseded or stale values are excluded. Ranking rows are editorial assessments under the cited methodology version — see the Code Editors category for definitions.