Compare / Amp vs GitHub Copilot
Head-to-head
Amp vs GitHub Copilot.
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 | GitHub Copilot | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 tier: 2,000 completions + 50 chat messages per month. Pro: $10/month. Business: $19/user/month. Enterprise: $39/user/month with policy controls and IP indemnification. |
| 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. | Teams already on GitHub Enterprise or Business. Developers who want autocomplete-plus-agent in a single tool without leaving VS Code or JetBrains. IT teams that need a corporate-friendly procurement story. |
| Not for | Teams not on Sourcegraph — the standalone story is less differentiated than Claude Code or Augment. Builders who want a simpler CLI experience. | Builders who want the most agentic tool on the market — Claude Code and Cursor are further along on multi-file autonomous workflows. Anyone unhappy with Microsoft / GitHub for vendor reasons. |
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 GitHub Copilot
Already included in most GitHub plans. Autocomplete-first, now with real agent mode. Best for builders who want one AI tool in their existing IDE.
Full GitHub Copilot 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
GitHub Copilot
What works
- Most-installed AI coding tool — bundled with GitHub Pro/Business/Enterprise plans
- Multi-vendor model access: GPT-5.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, others
- Native VS Code, JetBrains, Visual Studio, Xcode, and Neovim integrations
- Strong enterprise story: SSO, audit logs, IP indemnification, policy controls
- Agent mode now ships multi-file edits and PR creation
- Free tier is real — non-trivial usage allowance for individual developers
What doesn't
- Agent mode is newer and less mature than Claude Code or Cursor
- Multi-vendor models can mean inconsistent behaviour across tasks
- Microsoft / GitHub vendor lock-in if your stack already lives elsewhere
- Slower feature velocity on agentic workflows than Claude Code
- Code completion can suggest patterns from training data that don't match your codebase
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. GitHub Copilot for teams already on github enterprise or business. developers who want autocomplete-plus-agent in a single tool without leaving vs code or jetbrains. it teams that need a corporate-friendly procurement story.
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 GitHub Copilot — which should I pick?
Amp and GitHub Copilot 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.; GitHub Copilot for teams already on github enterprise or business. developers who want autocomplete-plus-agent in a single tool without leaving vs code or jetbrains. it teams that need a corporate-friendly procurement story..
Is Amp or GitHub Copilot 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. GitHub Copilot's pricing: Free tier: 2,000 completions + 50 chat messages per month. Pro: $10/month. Business: $19/user/month. Enterprise: $39/user/month with policy controls and IP indemnification. 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 GitHub Copilot best for?
Teams already on GitHub Enterprise or Business. Developers who want autocomplete-plus-agent in a single tool without leaving VS Code or JetBrains. IT teams that need a corporate-friendly procurement story.
Are Amp and GitHub Copilot 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