Comparisons / Anthropic Agent SDK vs Smolagents
Anthropic Agent SDK vs Smolagents: Which Agent Framework to Use?
Anthropic Agent SDK vs Smolagents, head to head
Anthropic Agent SDK and Smolagents both let you build an agent, but they sit in different parts of the stack and they assume different things about who's writing the code.
The Anthropic Agent SDK packages Claude Code's agent loop as a library.
Smolagents is HuggingFace's minimalist agent library.
Underneath, both wrap the same thing: a model call, a tool dispatch, a loop. The decision is about which abstraction your team wants to think in day to day, and which ecosystem you're willing to inherit along with it. There's an honest, framework-free version of the same pattern in about 60 lines of Python in the lesson at the bottom of this page — useful as a baseline regardless of which framework wins.
Pick Anthropic Agent SDK if
Pick Anthropic Agent SDK if the Anthropic Agent SDK's real value is packaging Claude Code's battle-tested agent loop with built-in tools and MCP integration. If you want a production agent that reads files, runs commands, and connects to services, it saves significant plumbing. For understanding how agents work, the plain version is more instructive. The tradeoffs in its intro should match how your team already thinks about agents; Smolagents will feel like translation if they don't.
Pick Smolagents if
Pick Smolagents if smolagents lives up to its name — it's genuinely minimal and the code-agent approach is a real innovation that reduces LLM calls by ~30%. If you want a lightweight agent library with HuggingFace ecosystem access, it's excellent. For understanding the fundamentals, the plain version is even simpler. The tradeoffs in its intro should match how your team already thinks about agents; Anthropic Agent SDK will feel like translation if they don't.
By the numbers
By the numbers
Anthropic Agent SDK
3.1k
582
Python
MIT
2023-01-17
Anthropic
Google, Spark Capital
Yes
Smolagents
26.4k
2.4k
Python
Apache-2.0
2024-12-05
Hugging Face
GitHub stats as of April 2026. Stars indicate community interest, not necessarily quality or fit for your use case.
| Concept | Anthropic Agent SDK | Smolagents |
|---|---|---|
| Agent | Claude agent with built-in tools, MCP servers, and system prompt | `CodeAgent` or `ToolCallingAgent` with model and tools list |
| Tools | Built-in tools (`bash`, file read/write, web) + MCP server connections | `@tool` decorator or `Tool` class with name, description, and callable |
| Agent Loop | SDK's internal agentic loop with automatic tool dispatch | Internal loop: think (LLM reasons), act (code/tool call), observe (result) |
| Sub-Agents | Agents invoke other agents as tools via the SDK | — |
| Lifecycle Hooks | 18 hook events: pre/post tool call, message, error, etc. | — |
| MCP Integration | One-line MCP server config for Playwright, Slack, GitHub, etc. | — |
| Code Actions | — | `CodeAgent` writes Python code as its action, executed in sandbox |
| Sandbox | — | E2B, Docker, Modal, or Pyodide sandbox for safe code execution |
| Model Support | — | HuggingFace Hub models, OpenAI, Anthropic, local via LiteLLM |
Or build your own in 60 lines
Both Anthropic Agent SDK and Smolagents implement the same 8 patterns. An agent is a function. Tools are a dict. The loop is a while loop. The whole thing composes in ~60 lines of Python.
No framework. No dependencies. No opinions. Just the code.
Build it from scratch →