ccusage vs ccclub

Short answer: they solve different problems, and plenty of people use both. ccusage answers "what did I use?"; ccclub answers "how does our group compare?". Disclosure up front: ccclub is our project — we'll try to be even-handed anyway.

What each tool does

ccusage is a reporting CLI. It reads local coding-agent data and prints tables — daily, weekly, monthly, per-session, or Claude Code's 5-hour billing windows — with costs in USD. Its README lists 18 sources, from Claude Code and Codex through Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot CLI, and Goose. Nothing in that README describes uploading your usage anywhere; the only network access it documents is fetching model prices, which --offline skips by using a pre-cached table. It has become the de-facto standard for personal usage reports.

ccclub is a shared leaderboard. Everyone in a group runs npx ccclub init or join CODE; after that, usage syncs automatically (a session-end hook for Claude Code, background sync for Codex, OpenCode, Amp, Grok, and Pi, and for Cursor once you enable it) and the group sees one ranking — in the terminal via ccclub or on a live web dashboard. It uploads aggregated numeric summaries only: token counts, estimated cost, model names, turn counts, in 30-minute blocks. No prompts, code, or file paths; ccclub show-data prints the exact payload.

Side by side

Pick ccusage if…

• You want reports for yourself and nobody else needs to see them.
• You need coverage for an agent ccclub doesn't support yet — its source list is the longer one.
• You want fine-grained analysis: per-session reports, 5-hour blocks, or Claude Code grouped by project with --instances.

Pick ccclub if…

• You and friends or teammates want one leaderboard that stays current without anyone manually running reports.
• You want a shareable live dashboard (each group gets ccclub.dev/g/CODE).
• You're curious how your usage ranks more broadly — there's an opt-in global board.

Or use both

They read the same local logs and don't conflict. A common setup: ccusage for detailed personal analysis, ccclub for the group scoreboard. If you're deciding among leaderboard tools specifically, see the leaderboard comparison.

Methodology

ccclub publishes this comparison; treat it as our argument, not a neutral review. Every claim about ccusage on this page was read from its own README and documentation site on 2026-09-19 — its source list, report granularity, pricing and offline behaviour, project grouping, and license. Where the README does not say something, this page does not claim it: it documents no upload of your usage, so that is how the table words it, rather than asserting on ccusage's behalf that nothing is ever sent.

The ccclub side is read from our own source: what the CLI collects, what the sync payload contains, and what the leaderboard computes. The boundaries are listed in machine-readable form at llms.txt.

Sources

1. ccusage README — github.com/ccusage/ccusage (read 2026-09-19). The older github.com/ryoppippi/ccusage URL redirects here.
2. ccusage documentation — ccusage.com.
3. ccclub source and README — github.com/mazzzystar/ccclub (MIT).
4. ccclub boundaries, machine-readable — ccclub.dev/llms.txt and ccclub.dev/llms-full.txt.

Last updated 2026-09-29. Corrections welcome on GitHub.