Git worktrees and Git branches are related but fundamentally different in how they let you interact with your code. Both are part of Git, but they solve different workflow challenges.[2][5]
Branches are Git's way of diverging from the main line of development to work on different features or fixes. In standard Git branching, you work in a single working directory and switch between branches using commands like git checkout or git switch. When you switch branches, Git updates the files in your current directory to match the branch you're switching to. This means you need to either commit or stash your work-in-progress changes before switching, which can disrupt your workflow.[1][5][2]
Git worktrees allow you to check out multiple branches from the same repository simultaneously, each in its own separate working directory. Instead of switching branches by changing what's checked out in one directory, you switch branches by literally moving between different directories on your filesystem. The branches themselves still live in the repository—worktrees just provide multiple physical workspaces that all connect to the same underlying Git repository.[3][6][1][2]
The main difference is physical separation. With branches alone, you have one working directory that shows different content when you switch branches. With worktrees, each branch gets its own dedicated directory, so all branches can be checked out and visible at the same time. This eliminates the need to stash or commit work-in-progress changes when you need to switch contexts.[5][2][3]
For example, if you're working on a feature and your boss asks you to fix an urgent bug, with traditional branching you'd need to stash your changes, switch branches, fix the bug, commit it, then switch back and unstash. With worktrees, you simply navigate to a different directory where a different branch is already checked out, fix the bug there, and return to your feature work without any stashing.[6][8][5]
Worktrees enable true parallel development—you can have your IDE open to one branch while running tests in another branch simultaneously. This is particularly valuable when working with AI coding assistants like Cline, where you might want multiple LLMs working on different branches at the same time without interference. Each worktree is completely isolated, preventing conflicts and making experimentation safer.[7][9][2]
The command to create a worktree is straightforward: git worktree add <path> <branch-name>. This creates a new directory at the specified path with the branch checked out. You can list all worktrees with git worktree list and remove them with git worktree prune after deleting the directory.[2][6]
Worktrees do use more disk space since each one is a full checkout of the repository. They can also introduce complexity for Git beginners who need to understand that they're managing multiple directories connected to the same repository. However, for developers working on multiple features simultaneously or needing to frequently switch contexts, worktrees eliminate the friction of constant branch switching.[8][7][2]
You're absolutely right—you can just clone three times and checkout different branches in each, and it would functionally accomplish the same thing. But worktrees have several key advantages that make them better for this workflow.[1][2][3][4][5]
Disk Space Savings
When you clone three times, you get three complete copies of the entire Git history—three
.gitfolders with all the objects, refs, and metadata. For a large repository, that's significant disk space duplication. With worktrees, you have one.gitfolder shared by all three working directories. Only the actual working files are duplicated, which is much smaller.[2][4][5][6]Shared Repository State
With worktrees, all three directories share the same repository, which has practical benefits:[7][2]
git fetchin one worktree, all worktrees instantly see the updated remote branches[2][7]git diff feature-claude feature-gptwork seamlessly from any worktree[7]With three separate clones, each has its own "origin," and comparing branches across clones requires setting up cross-remotes or pushing to a central repo first. It's more cumbersome.[7]
Easier Management
Worktrees know about each other. Run
git worktree listfrom any worktree and you see all of them. If you have three separate clones scattered across your filesystem, nothing tracks them—you might forget where you put one or lose track of work in progress.[2][7]Git also enforces that a branch can only be checked out in one worktree at a time, preventing accidental conflicts. With separate clones, you could accidentally checkout the same branch in multiple places and create confusing situations when pushing.[2]
When Cloning Makes Sense
That said, multiple clones aren't wrong—they're just less efficient. If you prefer the mental model of completely independent repositories, or if you're already comfortable managing multiple clones, go for it. The functional outcome is similar. But for the parallel AI development workflow you're describing, worktrees are the cleaner, more space-efficient approach that keeps everything organized in one logical repository.[3][4][5][1][7]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10