Compare / Amp vs Augment Code
Head-to-head
Amp vs Augment Code.
Side-by-side on ratings, pricing, pros, cons, and the honest take on which to pick. Both are in our coding agent category — direct competitors.
| Amp | Augment Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Category | Coding Agent | Coding Agent |
| Tech level | developer | developer |
| Open source | No | No |
| Pricing | Free tier with usage limits. Paid tiers via Sourcegraph subscription. Bundled with Sourcegraph Code Search for teams already on the platform. | Free trial available. Pro: ~$50/user/month for individuals. Team and Enterprise tiers with custom pricing. Includes the Augment Engine for codebase indexing. |
| Best for | Engineering teams already paying for Sourcegraph Code Search who want to add an AI agent that reuses the existing codebase index. Free tier is generous enough for individual evaluation. | Engineering teams in large codebases (100k+ files, multi-million lines) where context-awareness across the repo matters more than raw model speed. Strong for refactoring legacy systems. |
| Not for | Teams not on Sourcegraph — the standalone story is less differentiated than Claude Code or Augment. Builders who want a simpler CLI experience. | Solo developers or small projects — the Augment Engine's codebase indexing is overkill for a 50-file repo. Cursor or Claude Code give better value at smaller scale. |
Our verdict on Amp
Sourcegraph's agentic coding tool built on years of code-search investment. Strong for teams already on Sourcegraph; less compelling as a standalone.
Full Amp review →Our verdict on Augment Code
Strong agentic coding tool with deep codebase context. Best for large monorepos where other tools lose the thread. Pricing higher than most competitors.
Full Augment Code review →Amp
What works
- Built on Sourcegraph's mature code-search and indexing infrastructure
- Free tier with meaningful usage allowance
- Strong codebase-context story without separate indexing setup
- Native integration with Sourcegraph Code Search
- Sourcegraph's enterprise compliance story (SOC 2, on-prem options) carries over
What doesn't
- Standalone value less compelling than Claude Code or Augment for non-Sourcegraph teams
- Newer to agentic coding than competitors with longer track records
- Smaller community vs Cursor or Copilot
- Locked into Sourcegraph as the indexing/context layer
- Best fit narrows to teams already paying for Sourcegraph
Augment Code
What works
- Augment Engine indexes the full codebase in real time — strongest large-monorepo story
- Agentic workflows with multi-file refactoring across many files
- VS Code and JetBrains integrations
- Strong for legacy refactoring and architectural changes
- Backed by serious funding (~$250M) and engineering team
What doesn't
- Pricing significantly higher than Claude Code, Cursor, or Aider
- Overkill for small projects or solo developers
- Closed source — no self-hosting option
- Smaller community and integration ecosystem than Cursor
- Less differentiated story for non-monorepo workflows
Which to pick
These two are closely matched. Don't pick on overall rating — pick on use case. Amp for engineering teams already paying for sourcegraph code search who want to add an ai agent that reuses the existing codebase index. free tier is generous enough for individual evaluation. Augment Code for engineering teams in large codebases (100k+ files, multi-million lines) where context-awareness across the repo matters more than raw model speed. strong for refactoring legacy systems.
Honest middle: most serious operators end up using more than one tool. If you're early in your AI agent journey, our five-question picker recommends a starting platform from your specific situation.
Common questions
Amp vs Augment Code — which should I pick?
Amp and Augment Code are closely matched (we rate them 4.0/5 and 4.0/5). Pick by use case rather than overall score: Amp for engineering teams already paying for sourcegraph code search who want to add an ai agent that reuses the existing codebase index. free tier is generous enough for individual evaluation.; Augment Code for engineering teams in large codebases (100k+ files, multi-million lines) where context-awareness across the repo matters more than raw model speed. strong for refactoring legacy systems..
Is Amp or Augment Code cheaper?
Amp's pricing: Free tier with usage limits. Paid tiers via Sourcegraph subscription. Bundled with Sourcegraph Code Search for teams already on the platform. Augment Code's pricing: Free trial available. Pro: ~$50/user/month for individuals. Team and Enterprise tiers with custom pricing. Includes the Augment Engine for codebase indexing. The right "cheaper" pick depends on usage volume and what's included — see the pricing row in the table above.
What's Amp best for?
Engineering teams already paying for Sourcegraph Code Search who want to add an AI agent that reuses the existing codebase index. Free tier is generous enough for individual evaluation.
What's Augment Code best for?
Engineering teams in large codebases (100k+ files, multi-million lines) where context-awareness across the repo matters more than raw model speed. Strong for refactoring legacy systems.
Are Amp and Augment Code direct competitors?
Yes — both are coding agent options. They target similar builders, which is why the head-to-head matters.
Compare Amp against other options