Cursor vs Amp
Detailed side-by-side comparison to help you choose the right tool
Cursor
🔴DeveloperAI coding assistant
Cursor review covering codebase-aware agents, completions, cloud agents, MCP tools, verified pricing, privacy controls, practical use cases, pros, and cons.
Was this helpful?
Starting Price
$0Amp
AI coding assistant
Amp is Sourcegraph’s frontier coding agent for professional developers who want CLI-first automation, long-running agent workflows, MCP-connected tooling, plugins, and pay-as-you-go individual pricing. It is better suited to serious engineering teams than casual coding help because its value depends on terminal workflows, workspace policy, and agent supervision.
Was this helpful?
Starting Price
$0 subscription; paid credits required after free/interactive allowanceFeature Comparison
Scroll horizontally to compare details.
💡 Our Take
Choose Amp if your workflow centers on terminal-launched agents, long-running tasks, plugins, and remote control across web, CLI, and mobile. Choose Cursor if your team wants an AI-native editor experience with code assistance embedded directly in the IDE and less emphasis on CLI-first agent orchestration.
Cursor - Pros & Cons
Pros
- ✓Unifies chat, edits, completions, and agents
- ✓Repository context supports multi-file work
- ✓MCP connects approved development tools
- ✓Several tiers support different usage levels
Cons
- ✗Usage limits and on-demand charges require monitoring
- ✗Broad generated diffs need careful review
- ✗Cloud agents expand the source and credential trust boundary
- ✗Editor adoption may conflict with IDE standards
Amp - Pros & Cons
Pros
- ✓Amp supports CLI-first agent workflows and can be installed on Mac, Linux, WSL, Windows, or through Homebrew, which fits developers who live in terminal-based workflows.
- ✓The June 4, 2026 "Agents, Everywhere" release adds continuity across web, CLI, and mobile so developers can watch and drive agents from more than one surface.
- ✓Performance claims are specific: Amp says deep and rush modes now receive the first token 87% faster, entire responses are 32% faster at p50, and long-horizon tasks can reach up to a 40% end-to-end speedup.
- ✓Plugin extensibility is deeper than simple settings: plugins can hook into events, add tools, standardize policy, and be deployed to a workspace.
- ✓The public pricing message is unusually direct for this category: individuals and non-enterprise workspaces pay pass-through provider API costs with zero markup, no subscription or commitment, and a $5 minimum credit purchase.
- ✓Team controls include passkey-authenticated "sudo" sessions for web and mobile remote control, which is useful when organizations need stronger governance around agent actions.
Cons
- ✗Amp does not publish a simple fixed monthly or annual seat price, so teams must estimate usage from provider API costs and Amp credit consumption rather than a flat subscription.
- ✗Usage-based pricing can be harder to forecast than a flat per-seat subscription, especially for developers running long deep or rush sessions.
- ✗Amp is aimed at professional developers and software teams; nontechnical users will get little value from its CLI, TUI, plugin, and workspace concepts.
- ✗The product messaging emphasizes moving quickly with frontier models, which may be uncomfortable for teams that prefer slow-changing, highly standardized tooling.
- ✗Because Amp is newer and more agent-focused than mainstream editor assistants, teams may need to validate its behavior, permissions, and cost controls before replacing incumbent tools.
Not sure which to pick?
🎯 Take our quiz →Price Drop Alerts
Get notified when AI tools lower their prices
Get weekly AI agent tool insights
Comparisons, new tool launches, and expert recommendations delivered to your inbox.