Quick answer
Amp and Cody are both built by Sourcegraph, but they solve different problems. Cody is the earlier product — an inline-completion and chat assistant that lives in your editor and answers questions about your codebase. Amp is newer and more ambitious — a genuinely autonomous agent that can plan and execute multi-file changes with less hand-holding, priced on usage rather than a flat subscription. If you want an assistant that helps you write code faster, Cody is the more familiar fit. If you want to hand off a real task and get a set of changes back, Amp is the one built for that.
Sourcegraph built its name on code search before AI coding tools existed at all, and both Amp and Cody inherit that advantage — a genuine understanding of large, real codebases rather than just the file currently open. Where they diverge is how much autonomy they are trusted with, and that difference is the whole story of choosing between them.
What Cody actually is
Cody is Sourcegraph's original AI coding assistant: inline autocomplete as you type, a chat panel for asking questions about your code, and commands for common tasks like explaining a function or generating a unit test. It behaves like most editor-embedded assistants — you stay in the driver's seat, reviewing and accepting suggestions one at a time, with the AI acting more like a fast, context-aware collaborator than an independent worker.
What Amp actually is
Amp is Sourcegraph's bet on agentic coding — you describe a task, and Amp plans out the steps, edits multiple files, runs commands, and iterates on its own before handing back a result for review. It is built for delegating a real chunk of work rather than getting help with the line you are currently typing. That autonomy is the entire pitch, and it is also where the risk and the trust question live: you are reviewing a finished set of changes rather than approving each one as it happens.
- Cody: inline completions, codebase-aware chat, staying in control of every individual change
- Amp: describe a task, get multi-file changes executed with real autonomy, review the result afterward
- Cody fits a "faster typing" mental model; Amp fits a "delegate the task" mental model
Pricing models are genuinely different, not just different numbers
Cody follows the standard AI-coding-tool pattern — a subscription tier with usage limits, priced similarly to competitors like GitHub Copilot. Amp is priced on usage instead, closer to paying for API-style consumption than a flat monthly fee. That distinction matters practically: a flat subscription is predictable and better for steady, moderate use, while usage-based pricing rewards precise, well-scoped tasks and can get expensive fast if you let an autonomous agent run wide, unfocused jobs without a budget in mind.
When to actually pick each one
- Pick Cody if you want an assistant that speeds up the code you are already writing, with predictable monthly cost and full control over every change
- Pick Amp if you have well-defined, self-contained tasks you would rather hand off entirely and review afterward, and you are comfortable with usage-based billing
- Teams often end up using both — Cody for daily inline work, Amp for larger, delegable chunks like migrations or repetitive multi-file changes
How both fit alongside Cursor, Claude Code, and Devin
Cody competes most directly with editor-native assistants like Cursor's Tab and GitHub Copilot — tools built around staying in the loop on every suggestion. Amp sits closer to the autonomous-agent tier alongside Claude Code and Devin, where the pitch is genuine delegation rather than assisted typing. Sourcegraph's advantage in that tier is its code-search heritage — Amp's understanding of a large, unfamiliar codebase tends to be a genuine strength relative to agents without that search background built in.
The real decision is not "which tool is smarter" — it is how much autonomy you actually want to hand over, and whether your task is well-scoped enough to trust with usage-based, less-supervised execution.
Related reading
Bottom line
Amp and Cody are not really competitors so much as two different bets on how much you want an AI coding tool to do without you. Cody keeps you in the loop on every change; Amp asks you to trust it with the whole task and review the outcome. Pick based on how much supervision the work actually needs, not on which name sounds newer.
