Compare / Amp vs Cline
Head-to-head
Amp vs Cline.
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 | Cline | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 |
| Category | Coding Agent | Coding Agent |
| Tech level | developer | developer |
| Open source | No | Yes |
| Pricing | Free tier with meaningful usage allowance. Paid tiers $19–$49/month for individuals. Enterprise pricing for teams bundled with Sourcegraph Code Search. Token-based usage on top of subscription tiers. | Free and open-source. BYOK — you pay API costs directly to Anthropic, OpenAI, or any provider. Typical solo-developer monthly spend on Claude Sonnet: $20–$100 in API tokens. No Cline subscription required. Enterprise plans available for teams. |
| Best for | Engineering teams already paying for Sourcegraph Code Search who want to add an AI agent that reuses the existing codebase index. Strong for large enterprise codebases (1M+ lines) where context retrieval is the bottleneck. Free tier is generous enough for individual evaluation. | Developers who want full control and transparency — open-source, model-agnostic, works across VS Code, JetBrains, and CLI. The default pick for builders who don't want a SaaS subscription markup on top of their API costs, especially high-volume daily users where direct API billing meaningfully beats Cursor's $20 credit pool. |
| Not for | Teams not on Sourcegraph — the standalone story is less differentiated than Claude Code or Augment Code. Solo developers and small projects where the codebase-context advantage doesn't compound. Builders who want a simpler CLI or terminal-first experience. | Non-developers who want a point-and-click interface. Anyone who prefers an all-in-one managed subscription with one bill instead of direct API billing. Builders for whom the 10-minute BYOK setup friction outweighs the long-term cost savings (in which case Cursor Pro is the right pick). |
Our verdict on Amp
Sourcegraph's agentic coding tool built on years of code-search investment. The codebase-context story is genuinely differentiated for teams already running Sourcegraph at scale. As a standalone vs Cursor or Claude Code, it's solid but less obvious — the strategic moat is the Sourcegraph install base, not the agent itself.
Full Amp review →Our verdict on Cline
The most popular open-source coding agent by install count — 61k GitHub stars, 5M installs. BYOK means no SaaS subscription on top of your API costs, which is often 30–60% cheaper than Cursor Pro for builders running heavy daily agentic work. The trade-off is setup friction (you wire up API keys yourself) and a less polished UI than Cursor. For developers who want full control and direct API billing, this is the default pick in 2026.
Full Cline review →Amp
What works
- Built on Sourcegraph's mature code-search and indexing infrastructure
- Free tier with meaningful usage allowance for individual evaluation
- Strong codebase-context story without separate indexing setup
- Native integration with Sourcegraph Code Search
- Sourcegraph's enterprise compliance (SOC 2, on-prem options) carries over
- Cross-repo awareness that single-repo tools miss
- Active product velocity — feature gap vs Cursor is closing fast
What doesn't
- Standalone value less compelling than Claude Code or Augment Code for non-Sourcegraph teams
- Newer to agentic coding (launched mid-2025) than competitors with longer track records
- Smaller community vs Cursor or Copilot
- Locked into Sourcegraph as the indexing/context layer
- Best fit narrows to enterprise teams already paying for Sourcegraph
- Editor support skews VS Code-centric; JetBrains story less mature
Cline
What works
- BYOK — no Cline subscription, only your direct API costs
- Cost savings of 30–60% vs Cursor Pro for high-volume daily users
- 61k GitHub stars — the largest open-source coding agent community
- Works in VS Code, JetBrains, and CLI — not locked to one IDE
- Fully model-agnostic — Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, local Ollama models
- Full agentic loop — reads, plans, edits across files, runs commands, iterates
- Open source and auditable — Apache 2.0, you can read exactly what it's doing
- Active enterprise adoption (Samsung, Microsoft, Amazon) validates production-readiness
What doesn't
- BYOK setup adds 10 minutes of friction vs Cursor's one-click subscription
- Less polished UI than Cursor — power-user tool, not beginner-friendly
- No built-in usage dashboard — tracking API costs across sessions requires external tooling
- Tab completion is good but not best-in-class — Cursor still wins on inline suggestions
- Enterprise support newer and less mature than Cursor's commercial team
- Split billing (API + optional team subscription) can be procurement-awkward at large companies
Which to pick
We'd default to Cline (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. strong for large enterprise codebases (1m+ lines) where context retrieval is the bottleneck. 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 Cline — which should I pick?
We rate Cline 4.5/5 vs 4.0/5 for Amp. Cline wins for developers who want full control and transparency — open-source, model-agnostic, works across vs code, jetbrains, and cli. the default pick for builders who don't want a saas subscription markup on top of their api costs, especially high-volume daily users where direct api billing meaningfully beats cursor's $20 credit pool. — 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. Strong for large enterprise codebases (1M+ lines) where context retrieval is the bottleneck. Free tier is generous enough for individual evaluation.). See the head-to-head table above for the full breakdown.
Is Amp or Cline cheaper?
Amp's pricing: Free tier with meaningful usage allowance. Paid tiers $19–$49/month for individuals. Enterprise pricing for teams bundled with Sourcegraph Code Search. Token-based usage on top of subscription tiers. Cline's pricing: Free and open-source. BYOK — you pay API costs directly to Anthropic, OpenAI, or any provider. Typical solo-developer monthly spend on Claude Sonnet: $20–$100 in API tokens. No Cline subscription required. Enterprise plans available for teams. 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. Strong for large enterprise codebases (1M+ lines) where context retrieval is the bottleneck. Free tier is generous enough for individual evaluation.
What's Cline best for?
Developers who want full control and transparency — open-source, model-agnostic, works across VS Code, JetBrains, and CLI. The default pick for builders who don't want a SaaS subscription markup on top of their API costs, especially high-volume daily users where direct API billing meaningfully beats Cursor's $20 credit pool.
Are Amp and Cline 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