Skip to content
effecthub

AMP vs Cursor

Two fact sheets from our own research, side by side — pricing, platforms, API access and status re-checked by us rather than quoted from the vendors. Both start at $20. Both have a free tier.

AMPSourcegraph's coding agent: pay-as-you-go or subscription access to an autonomous code-editing agent.CursorAI-first code editor whose agents edit multi-file projects, run in the cloud and review pull requests

Side by side

FactAMPCursor
CategoryAI Coding AssistantsAI Code Editors & IDEs
Pricing modelFreemiumFreemium
Starts at$20 month$20 month
Public APINoNo
PlatformsmacOS, Windows, Linux, Vscode ExtmacOS, Windows, Linux, Web
CompanySourcegraph, Inc.Anysphere, Inc.
Launched—2023
Last verifiedSep 1, 2026Sep 6, 2026

What our research says

AMP

The pay-as-you-go option with no markup over provider API pricing is unusual among coding agents, most wrap model costs in a flat subscription, and the free tier's autocomplete plus uncapped core agent access is generous for evaluating fit. Choosing between pay-as-you-go and the $20/$200 subscriptions takes some judgment, since heavy daily use can make either cheaper depending on actual token volume.

Pros

  • Pay-as-you-go billing passes through provider API pricing with no markup
  • Free tier includes autocomplete and core agent access with no hard token cap
  • Backed by Sourcegraph, an established code-intelligence company operating since 2013
  • Plans and executes multi-step tasks (edit, run tests, iterate) rather than single-shot prompts

Cons

  • Usage-based costs are harder to predict upfront than a flat subscription
  • No JetBrains integration confirmed, CLI and VS Code only
  • The paid Smart Mode's exact scope beyond stronger data-privacy terms was not fully detailed on the pages checked

Cursor

The default choice for developers who want agentic coding inside a real editor, with cloud agents, PR review and multi-model access that large engineering orgs have already standardized on. The catch is the bill: agent-heavy use runs past plan allowances and overages are billed in arrears, so costs need active monitoring.

Pros

  • Agents work with repository-wide context, in-editor and in the cloud
  • Multi-model access includes frontier models plus in-house Composer
  • Free Hobby tier exists for trying agent workflows
  • Widely adopted in large enterprises, so tooling and docs mature fast

Cons

  • Real monthly cost is elastic once usage-based pricing kicks in
  • Pro+ and Ultra pricing is shown only through a plan selector, hurting comparability
  • Proprietary editor lock-in versus plain VS Code with extensions

Which one fits

Choose AMP if you need

  • Developers who want agent coding costs tied directly to actual API usage rather than a flat markup
  • Teams already comfortable working from a CLI or VS Code rather than a dedicated IDE fork
  • Users who want to try the core agent free before committing to a subscription

Choose Cursor if you need

  • Professional developers running agents on large existing codebases
  • Teams that want code review, cloud agents and editor in one subscription
  • VS Code users wanting a familiar editor with deeper AI integration

More comparisons

Browse all AI Coding Assistants →