Compare / Amp vs Claude Code
Head-to-head
Amp vs Claude 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 | Claude Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 |
| Category | Coding Agent | Coding Agent |
| Tech level | developer | low code |
| 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. | Included with Claude Pro ($20/month) and above. Max plan ($100/month) unlocks more usage and Opus 4.7. Uses your existing Claude account — no separate subscription. |
| 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. | Builders who already have a Claude subscription and want to go further — developers automating engineering work, founders building internal tools, and non-developers who've realised Claude can write and run code if given the right environment. |
| Not for | Teams not on Sourcegraph — the standalone story is less differentiated than Claude Code or Augment. Builders who want a simpler CLI experience. | People who haven't yet hit the ceiling of what Claude can do in the browser. Start there. Once you've maxed out chat-based workflows, Claude Code is the next step. |
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 Claude Code
Most builders pay for Claude and use 5% of what it can do. Claude Code is the rest. The biggest productivity step most builders haven't taken yet.
Full Claude 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
Claude Code
What works
- If you already pay for Claude, there's no new subscription — it's included
- Full agentic loop — reads files, plans, edits, tests, and iterates without you driving every step
- Works across macOS, Linux, WSL, and Windows
- Native git integration — commits, branches, and PRs without leaving the conversation
- MCP servers connect it to Jira, Linear, Slack, databases, and custom APIs
- CLAUDE.md gives it persistent memory of your project across sessions
- VS Code and JetBrains extensions for builders who prefer an IDE to a terminal
What doesn't
- Requires a terminal or IDE — there's no browser-based point-and-click interface
- Token costs climb fast on large codebases or long sessions
- Pricing has changed rapidly in 2026 — verify your plan's limits before a long session
- MCP server connections require manual setup
- Checkpoints undo file changes but not external side effects like API calls or database writes
Which to pick
We'd default to Claude Code (4.5/5 vs 4.0/5) for most builders. Pick Amp if you fit its best-for case specifically: 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.
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 Claude Code — which should I pick?
We rate Claude Code 4.5/5 vs 4.0/5 for Amp. Claude Code wins for builders who already have a claude subscription and want to go further — developers automating engineering work, founders building internal tools, and non-developers who've realised claude can write and run code if given the right environment. — but pick Amp if you fit its specific best-for case (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.). See the head-to-head table above for the full breakdown.
Is Amp or Claude 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. Claude Code's pricing: Included with Claude Pro ($20/month) and above. Max plan ($100/month) unlocks more usage and Opus 4.7. Uses your existing Claude account — no separate subscription. 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 Claude Code best for?
Builders who already have a Claude subscription and want to go further — developers automating engineering work, founders building internal tools, and non-developers who've realised Claude can write and run code if given the right environment.
Are Amp and Claude 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