Amp vs Cursor
A side-by-side comparison of Amp and Cursor, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Amp | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Category (differs) | Agent | IDE |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Deployment (differs) | Cloud | Local |
| Platforms (differs) | CLI, VS Code extension | macOS, Windows, Linux |
| Model support | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Sourcegraph | Anysphere |
| 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
Cursor
Pioneered agentic, multi-file editing in a familiar VS Code fork — frontier models bundled, no API key wrangling.
- Inherits the VS Code extension ecosystem
- Frontier models bundled in one plan
- Strong multi-file agent + tab completion
- BYO key supported
- Closed source (the editor itself)
- Heavier on usage limits at higher tiers
- No first-party Linux/mobile parity gaps
When to pick which
Both cover Autonomous coding agent, Terminal / CLI agent, IDE integration, and Code review.
Pick Cursor if you need Code generation.
- Code generation (primary capability)
Amp leans on Terminal / CLI agent as a headline capability; Cursor treats it as secondary.
- Terminal / CLI agent (primary capability)
They also differ on:
- Deployment
- Cloud · Local
- Platforms
- CLI, VS Code extension · macOS, Windows, Linux