Compare / Amp vs n8n
Head-to-head
Amp vs n8n.
Side-by-side on ratings, pricing, pros, cons, and the honest take on which to pick. Cross-category comparison: Amp is a coding agent and n8n is a workflow builder.
| Amp | n8n | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 |
| Category | Coding Agent | Workflow builder |
| Tech level | developer | low code |
| 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. | Open-source self-hosted (free — you pay only your server costs and model API tokens). Cloud plans from $24/month for hobbyists; $50–$100/month for serious teams; enterprise pricing for SSO and audit log requirements. AI agent node usage adds model API costs on top. |
| 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. | Teams with at least one developer who need flexible, powerful workflow automation with AI agents built in. Strong for marketing ops, customer support automation, internal tool orchestration, and any workflow that touches multiple SaaS APIs. Self-hosted option is the right pick when data residency or compliance matters. |
| 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 with zero technical resources — initial setup requires comfort with a server (self-hosted) or at minimum YAML-shaped thinking (cloud). Workflows that only need 2–3 steps and basic integrations — Zapier ships faster for simple cases. Pure agentic-loop tasks where no external systems are involved — a dedicated harness like OpenClaw or Paperclip is the better fit there. |
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 n8n
The best workflow automation platform for teams with at least one developer — beats every no-code tool for complex multi-step automations with AI agents. Self-hostable for full data control, 400+ integrations, mature AI agent layer. The trade-off is real: initial setup requires technical capacity, and the learning curve is steeper than Zapier or Lindy. For technical operators in 2026, n8n is the default.
Full n8n 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
n8n
What works
- 400+ integrations — connects to virtually everything
- Self-hostable for full data control (free, you pay only server + model costs)
- Strong native AI agent support with model-agnostic node design
- Large, active open-source community — fair-code licence
- Meaningfully more flexible than Zapier or Make for complex logic
- JavaScript expressions and custom nodes let you escape any limitation
- Cloud option for teams who don't want to operate the server
What doesn't
- Initial setup requires developer time (1+ day for serious workflows)
- Self-hosted version requires ongoing maintenance — patches, backups, monitoring
- Higher learning curve than Zapier or Lindy for non-technical operators
- Visual builder gets cluttered for very large workflows (20+ nodes)
- Pure agentic loops without integrations are better served by dedicated harnesses (OpenClaw, Paperclip)
Which to pick
We'd default to n8n (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 n8n — which should I pick?
We rate n8n 4.5/5 vs 4.0/5 for Amp. n8n wins for teams with at least one developer who need flexible, powerful workflow automation with ai agents built in. strong for marketing ops, customer support automation, internal tool orchestration, and any workflow that touches multiple saas apis. self-hosted option is the right pick when data residency or compliance matters. — 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 n8n 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. n8n's pricing: Open-source self-hosted (free — you pay only your server costs and model API tokens). Cloud plans from $24/month for hobbyists; $50–$100/month for serious teams; enterprise pricing for SSO and audit log requirements. AI agent node usage adds model API costs on top. 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 n8n best for?
Teams with at least one developer who need flexible, powerful workflow automation with AI agents built in. Strong for marketing ops, customer support automation, internal tool orchestration, and any workflow that touches multiple SaaS APIs. Self-hosted option is the right pick when data residency or compliance matters.
Why compare Amp and n8n if they're different categories?
Amp is a coding agent and n8n is a workflow builder. The comparison still matters because builders evaluating one often consider the other for adjacent jobs. See the recommendation section above for how to think about the cross-category choice.
Compare Amp against other options