Compare / Amp vs Paperclip
Head-to-head
Amp vs Paperclip.
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 Paperclip is a agent orchestration.
| Amp | Paperclip | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Category | Coding Agent | Agent orchestration |
| Tech level | developer | developer |
| Open source | No | Yes (MIT) |
| 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. Self-hosted on Node.js + PostgreSQL. |
| 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 running multiple AI agents who need org structure, budget controls, and approval workflows across their agent workforce. |
| 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. | Anyone just getting started. Paperclip is infrastructure, not an entry point. |
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 Paperclip
The only serious open-source platform for orchestrating teams of agents. If you're past one agent doing one thing, Paperclip is the layer you need.
Full Paperclip 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
Paperclip
What works
- The only open-source multi-agent orchestration platform
- Works with any agent runtime — fully vendor-agnostic
- Hard budget limits per agent prevent runaway API costs
- Immutable audit trail for every agent decision
- Active development — latest release April 2026
What doesn't
- Not a starting point — assumes you have agents to orchestrate
- Self-hosting requires PostgreSQL and Node.js infrastructure
- Smaller community than OpenClaw or Hermes
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. Paperclip for teams running multiple ai agents who need org structure, budget controls, and approval workflows across their agent workforce.
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 Paperclip — which should I pick?
Amp and Paperclip 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.; Paperclip for teams running multiple ai agents who need org structure, budget controls, and approval workflows across their agent workforce..
Is Amp or Paperclip 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. Paperclip's pricing: Free and open-source. Self-hosted on Node.js + PostgreSQL. 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 Paperclip best for?
Teams running multiple AI agents who need org structure, budget controls, and approval workflows across their agent workforce.
Why compare Amp and Paperclip if they're different categories?
Amp is a coding agent and Paperclip is a agent orchestration. 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