Compare / Amp vs Cursor
Head-to-head
Amp vs Cursor.
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 | Cursor | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | Hobby (free): 2k completions/month, 50 slow requests/month. Pro $20/month. Pro+ $60. Ultra $200. Teams $40/user/month. June 2025 pricing pivot reduced effective fast requests by ~55%. |
| 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 want an IDE-first AI experience and the ability to switch between Claude, GPT, and Gemini mid-session. Strong for rapid prototyping and exploration. |
| Not for | Teams not on Sourcegraph — the standalone story is less differentiated than Claude Code or Augment. Builders who want a simpler CLI experience. | Teams committed to JetBrains, Vim, or any non-VS Code editor. Anyone who wants CLI-first workflows. Operators sensitive to SaaS pricing changes. |
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 Cursor
The most-used AI coding IDE — $2B revenue, 360k paying users. Multi-model flexibility is a real edge. June 2025 pricing changes burned early adopters.
Full Cursor 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
Cursor
What works
- Multi-model — switch between Claude, GPT, and Gemini in the same session
- Familiar VS Code experience reduces onboarding friction
- Largest paying customer base on this list (360k)
- Best for rapid prototyping and exploration
- Active product development — feature velocity is high
What doesn't
- VS Code lock-in — no JetBrains, no Vim, no terminal-first workflows
- June 2025 pricing pivot cut effective requests ~55% without warning
- Agent mode can make large unreviewable multi-file edits
- Performance lag on very large projects vs vanilla VS Code
- Opaque usage meter — hard to track credit consumption in real time
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. Cursor for builders who want an ide-first ai experience and the ability to switch between claude, gpt, and gemini mid-session. strong for rapid prototyping and exploration.
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 Cursor — which should I pick?
Amp and Cursor 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.; Cursor for builders who want an ide-first ai experience and the ability to switch between claude, gpt, and gemini mid-session. strong for rapid prototyping and exploration..
Is Amp or Cursor 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. Cursor's pricing: Hobby (free): 2k completions/month, 50 slow requests/month. Pro $20/month. Pro+ $60. Ultra $200. Teams $40/user/month. June 2025 pricing pivot reduced effective fast requests by ~55%. 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 Cursor best for?
Builders who want an IDE-first AI experience and the ability to switch between Claude, GPT, and Gemini mid-session. Strong for rapid prototyping and exploration.
Are Amp and Cursor 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