Amp vs Augment Code
A side-by-side comparison of Amp and Augment Code, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Amp | Augment Code |
|---|---|---|
| Category (differs) | Agent | IDE |
| Pricing (differs) | FREEMIUM | PAID |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Deployment | Cloud | Cloud |
| Platforms (differs) | CLI, VS Code extension | VS Code extension, CLI |
| Model support | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Amp Frontier Corporation | Augment Code |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
Amp
Shareable, searchable agent 'threads' for the whole team, billed pay-as-you-go at zero markup over model prices.
- Zero-markup pay-as-you-go pricing
- Shareable/searchable team threads
- Routes across frontier models
- Works in terminal and editors
- Closed source
- Usage-metered costs can be unpredictable
- Newer than Cursor/Copilot
- Best value tied to Sourcegraph workflows
Augment Code
Context Engine indexes entire multi-repo codebases — built for enterprise monorepos, not single-project editing.
- Context Engine indexes whole codebases
- VS Code, JetBrains, CLI, remote agents
- Cross-file dependency reasoning
- Tuned for enterprise scale
- Cloud-only context engine
- Closed source
- Overkill for small projects
- Indexing/privacy considerations for big repos
When to pick which
Amp leans on Terminal / CLI agent as a headline capability; Augment Code treats it as secondary.
- Terminal / CLI agent (primary capability)
They also differ on:
- Pricing
- FREEMIUM · PAID
Their capability lists differ in recorded depth — compare the full lists above before deciding.