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 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 tier with meaningful daily usage — generous enough for individual evaluation, no credit card required. Pro at $15/month unlocks unlimited Supercomplete and higher Cascade usage. Teams at ~$30/user/month adds collaboration and admin controls. Enterprise pricing on request for SSO, audit logs, and SOC 2 requirements. BYOK is available for serious-volume Cascade users wanting direct OpenAI API access. |
| 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. | Developers who want the fastest IDE-native coding agent in 2026. Strong on Supercomplete autocomplete speed, large-codebase understanding, autonomous multi-file refactors, and goal-driven Flows that run without per-step approval. The right pick when your team works primarily in an editor and wants the agent to actively drive work rather than just suggest completions. |
| 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 wanting terminal-first or headless agent workflows — Windsurf is IDE-bound. Claude Code or Aider are better for CLI-driven automation. Teams committed to JetBrains IDEs — Windsurf is VS Code-shaped and JetBrains support lags. Teams wanting model-agnostic flexibility — the OpenAI acquisition has clarified the model strategy but reduced near-term choice. |
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 Windsurf
The fastest AI IDE for developers who want autonomous execution baked into the editor. Cascade and Flows handle multi-file refactors and goal-driven work end-to-end. OpenAI-acquired and actively developed. The right pick when speed and IDE-native autonomy matter more than terminal workflows.
Full Windsurf 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
Windsurf
What works
- Fastest autocomplete in the category — Supercomplete predicts multi-line edits before you finish typing
- Cascade agent completes multi-file tasks autonomously end-to-end — less per-step approval friction than Cursor
- Flows layer handles complex goal-driven work with full autonomy inside the editor
- Strong large-codebase understanding — indexes your full repo for cross-file context
- Active development post-OpenAI acquisition — clear roadmap and integration with GPT-5+
- Free tier is genuinely usable — meaningful daily Cascade usage with no credit card
- Pro tier is $5/month cheaper than Cursor with comparable feature depth
- Strongest in-editor autonomous-agent UX of any AI IDE in 2026
What doesn't
- IDE-bound — no CLI or headless mode for server-side automation
- Less customisable than Claude Code for complex multi-step workflows
- JetBrains support lags significantly behind the VS Code experience
- VS Code extension ecosystem support slightly behind pure VS Code
- Model flexibility narrowing post-OpenAI acquisition — long-term roadmap favours GPT-5+
- Cascade autonomy can over-execute on ambiguous prompts; guard-rails are looser than Roo Code's mode-based approach
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. 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 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 in 2026. strong on supercomplete autocomplete speed, large-codebase understanding, autonomous multi-file refactors, and goal-driven flows that run without per-step approval. the right pick when your team works primarily in an editor and wants the agent to actively drive work rather than just suggest completions. — 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 Windsurf 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. Windsurf's pricing: Free tier with meaningful daily usage — generous enough for individual evaluation, no credit card required. Pro at $15/month unlocks unlimited Supercomplete and higher Cascade usage. Teams at ~$30/user/month adds collaboration and admin controls. Enterprise pricing on request for SSO, audit logs, and SOC 2 requirements. BYOK is available for serious-volume Cascade users wanting direct OpenAI API access. 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 Windsurf best for?
Developers who want the fastest IDE-native coding agent in 2026. Strong on Supercomplete autocomplete speed, large-codebase understanding, autonomous multi-file refactors, and goal-driven Flows that run without per-step approval. The right pick when your team works primarily in an editor and wants the agent to actively drive work rather than just suggest completions.
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