Amp vs Cursor (2026)

Amp (Sourcegraph) vs Cursor — two agentic coding tools from different backgrounds. Which one handles large codebases better?

Feature Amp Cursor
Pricing Model FreemiumFreemium
Starting Price Free for individuals (testing an ad-supported model); Enterprise/Custom plans availableFree (Hobby), Pro $20/month, Pro+ $60/month, Ultra $200/month
Pros
  • + Built on Sourcegraph's decade of code search and intelligence infrastructure
  • + Handles large codebases better than most tools due to deep code indexing
  • + Team plan enables shared thread history and prompt libraries across the organization
  • + Supports multiple frontier models for flexibility
  • + Free forever individual tier with no time limit
  • + Full IDE experience
  • + Superior code understanding
  • + Multi-file editing
  • + Built-in chat
Cons
  • - Sourcegraph Cody (predecessor) is being wound down
  • - causing some user confusion
  • - Less polished UI than Cursor or Copilot for day-to-day inline editing
  • - Credit-based usage on paid plans can be unpredictable for heavy users
  • - Smaller community and fewer integrations than market leaders
  • - Higher price point
  • - Resource intensive
  • - Learning curve for advanced features

Overview

Amp and Cursor are both agentic coding tools with similar core capabilities — multi-file changes, codebase understanding, complex engineering tasks. The key difference is origin: Cursor was built from scratch as an AI-native editor, while Amp was built on Sourcegraph's decade of code search and intelligence infrastructure.

How each tool works

Cursor is a VS Code fork rebuilt around AI capabilities. Code completions, chat, Agent mode for multi-file edits, and Bugbot for PR review. Fast and capable for most daily development tasks.

Amp inherits Sourcegraph's code intelligence infrastructure. Sourcegraph has indexed billions of lines of code and built enterprise-grade tools for navigating large, complex codebases. Amp uses that foundation to provide better context when working in very large repositories — ones too large for any context window to fully capture.

Feature comparison

Cursor Amp
Base IDE VS Code fork Works in existing editors
Codebase context Recent files + open tabs Sourcegraph-indexed full repo
Large repo handling Good Better for very large repos
Team knowledge sharing Limited Shared thread history, prompt libraries
Starting price $20/month Free individual tier
Enterprise focus Growing Strong

Use cases

Cursor wins for day-to-day development in mid-sized codebases. The editing experience is polished, completions are fast, and IDE integration is seamless. Covers most developers' needs well.

Amp wins when codebase size and complexity exceed standard context windows. Repositories with millions of lines, dozens of services, and deep cross-service dependencies. Also stronger for teams wanting shared AI conversation history and organizational knowledge sharing.

Verdict

Individual developers: start with Cursor. Enterprise teams already on Sourcegraph, or those wrestling with very large codebases: Amp's codebase-wide context is worth evaluating. The two serve somewhat different markets despite surface-level similarity.

Amp

Free for individuals (testing an ad-supported model); Enterprise/Custom plans available · Freemium

Try Amp

Cursor

Free (Hobby), Pro $20/month, Pro+ $60/month, Ultra $200/month · Freemium

Try Cursor