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 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. | Hobby (free): 2k completions/month, 50 slow requests/month. Pro $20/month — the most common tier. Pro+ $60/month. Ultra $200/month. Teams $40/user/month with usage scaling. June 2025 pricing pivot replaced fixed fast-request quotas with a $20 credit pool, cutting effective monthly 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. Strong for large enterprise codebases (1M+ lines) where context retrieval is the bottleneck. 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, exploration of unfamiliar codebases, and active development sessions where short feedback loops matter more than autonomous agentic work. |
| 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. | Teams committed to JetBrains, Vim, or any non-VS Code editor. Anyone who wants CLI-first or terminal-first agentic workflows (Claude Code or Aider fit better). Operators sensitive to SaaS pricing changes — the June 2025 pivot is a real signal. High-volume daily users for whom direct API costs would be cheaper than Cursor's credit pool. |
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 Cursor
The most-used AI coding IDE in 2026 — $2B annualised revenue, 360k paying users. Multi-model flexibility (Claude, GPT, Gemini in one session) is a real edge. Tab completion is best-in-class. The June 2025 pricing change burned early adopters and trust hasn't fully recovered; for cost-sensitive builders, Cline at BYOK with Claude Sonnet often comes out cheaper for the same workflow.
Full Cursor 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
Cursor
What works
- Multi-model — switch between Claude, GPT, and Gemini in the same session (genuinely unique in the category)
- Tab completion is best-in-class — predicts multi-file edits, not just next-line
- Familiar VS Code experience reduces onboarding friction to near-zero
- Largest paying customer base on this list (360k), validates product-market fit
- Active product development — agent mode, model selector, and codebase chat ship updates weekly
- Codebase-aware semantic search beats raw grep for navigating unfamiliar repos
- Cmd+K in-line edit is the fastest targeted-change interaction in any coding tool
What doesn't
- VS Code lock-in — no JetBrains, no Vim, no terminal-first workflows
- June 2025 pricing pivot cut effective fast requests ~55% without clear notice
- Agent mode can make large unreviewable multi-file edits — needs branch-and-commit discipline
- Performance lag on very large projects vs vanilla VS Code (and vs Augment Code at the enterprise-codebase end)
- Opaque usage meter — hard to track credit consumption against the $20 pool in real time
- For high-volume daily users, direct Claude API via Cline often comes out cheaper than the Cursor subscription
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. strong for large enterprise codebases (1m+ lines) where context retrieval is the bottleneck. 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, exploration of unfamiliar codebases, and active development sessions where short feedback loops matter more than autonomous agentic work.
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. strong for large enterprise codebases (1m+ lines) where context retrieval is the bottleneck. 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, exploration of unfamiliar codebases, and active development sessions where short feedback loops matter more than autonomous agentic work..
Is Amp or Cursor 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. Cursor's pricing: Hobby (free): 2k completions/month, 50 slow requests/month. Pro $20/month — the most common tier. Pro+ $60/month. Ultra $200/month. Teams $40/user/month with usage scaling. June 2025 pricing pivot replaced fixed fast-request quotas with a $20 credit pool, cutting effective monthly 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. Strong for large enterprise codebases (1M+ lines) where context retrieval is the bottleneck. 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, exploration of unfamiliar codebases, and active development sessions where short feedback loops matter more than autonomous agentic work.
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