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 | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Deployment | Cloud | Cloud |
| Platforms (differs) | CLI, VS Code extension | VS Code extension, CLI |
| Model support | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Sourcegraph | Augment Code |
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