Compare / Amp vs Windsurf
Head-to-head
Amp vs Windsurf.
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 | Windsurf | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.5 / 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 (limited). Pro ~$15/month. Teams ~$30/user/month. |
| 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. | Developers who want the fastest IDE-native coding agent — strong on autocomplete speed, large codebase understanding, and autonomous multi-file refactors without leaving the editor. |
| Not for | Teams not on Sourcegraph — the standalone story is less differentiated than Claude Code or Augment. Builders who want a simpler CLI experience. | Teams wanting terminal-first or headless agent workflows. Windsurf is IDE-bound — Claude Code or Aider are better for CLI-driven automation. |
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 Windsurf
Codeium's AI IDE. Cascade handles multi-file edits autonomously. Fast autocomplete edges Cursor on speed; Flows runs complex tasks without you in the loop.
Full Windsurf 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
Windsurf
What works
- Fastest autocomplete in the category — Supercomplete predicts before you finish
- Cascade agent completes multi-file tasks autonomously end-to-end
- Flows layer handles complex goals with full autonomy
- Strong large-codebase understanding — indexes your full repo
- Active development post-OpenAI acquisition
- Free tier is genuinely usable — low friction to evaluate
What doesn't
- IDE-bound — no CLI or headless mode for server-side automation
- Less customisable than Claude Code for complex multi-step workflows
- VS Code extension ecosystem support slightly behind pure VS Code
- OpenAI acquisition raises questions about long-term model flexibility
Which to pick
We'd default to Windsurf (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. 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 Windsurf — which should I pick?
We rate Windsurf 4.5/5 vs 4.0/5 for Amp. Windsurf wins for developers who want the fastest ide-native coding agent — strong on autocomplete speed, large codebase understanding, and autonomous multi-file refactors without leaving the editor. — 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. Free tier is generous enough for individual evaluation.). See the head-to-head table above for the full breakdown.
Is Amp or Windsurf 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. Windsurf's pricing: Free tier (limited). Pro ~$15/month. Teams ~$30/user/month. 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 Windsurf best for?
Developers who want the fastest IDE-native coding agent — strong on autocomplete speed, large codebase understanding, and autonomous multi-file refactors without leaving the editor.
Are Amp and Windsurf 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