Compare / Amp vs Vapi
Head-to-head
Amp vs Vapi.
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 Vapi is a voice ai agent.
| Amp | Vapi | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Category | Coding Agent | Voice AI 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. | Pay-per-minute: ~$0.05–0.08 per minute, slightly cheaper than Retell at scale. Free tier for evaluation. Volume discounts. |
| 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. | Engineering teams building production voice products who need fine control over the model, voice synthesis provider, and call routing. Strong API and webhook story. |
| 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. | Non-technical teams — Retell's SDK is more accessible. Teams that don't need the customisation depth Vapi offers. |
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 Vapi
Developer-first voice infrastructure with strong customisation hooks. Best for teams wanting more pipeline control than Retell, without building from scratch.
Full Vapi 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
Vapi
What works
- Multi-vendor model and voice provider support
- Cheaper per-minute pricing than Retell at scale
- Strong webhook and API customisation
- Good for white-labelled voice products
- Active developer community and docs
What doesn't
- Steeper learning curve than Retell — more configuration to do
- Quality depends on which voice provider you select
- Less polished onboarding for non-developers
- Documentation occasionally lags new features
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. Vapi for engineering teams building production voice products who need fine control over the model, voice synthesis provider, and call routing. strong api and webhook 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 Vapi — which should I pick?
Amp and Vapi 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.; Vapi for engineering teams building production voice products who need fine control over the model, voice synthesis provider, and call routing. strong api and webhook story..
Is Amp or Vapi 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. Vapi's pricing: Pay-per-minute: ~$0.05–0.08 per minute, slightly cheaper than Retell at scale. Free tier for evaluation. Volume discounts. 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 Vapi best for?
Engineering teams building production voice products who need fine control over the model, voice synthesis provider, and call routing. Strong API and webhook story.
Why compare Amp and Vapi if they're different categories?
Amp is a coding agent and Vapi is a voice ai agent. 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