Amp vs Cursor — Which AI Agent Is Better?
An in-depth comparison of Amp and Cursor across output quality, autonomy, reliability, speed, value, and ease of use. Vote for your favorite.
An in-depth comparison of Amp and Cursor across output quality, autonomy, reliability, speed, value, and ease of use. Vote for your favorite.
Pick a winner in each category — you can change your vote anytime.
AmpCursorChoose Amp if you are teams that want maximum-capability agentic coding and will pay for tokens at cost. Choose Cursor if you are developers who want the most polished AI-integrated editor experience.
In our editorial scoring, Cursor leads in 4 of six categories (output quality, reliability, speed and ease of use), while Amp leads in 1 (value). On price, Amp runs usage-based credits / free tier and is proprietary; Cursor runs free tier / $20–200/mo and is proprietary.
Amp is Sourcegraph's take on agentic coding: no model picker, no knobs — it always runs frontier models with maximum reasoning and leans into autonomy. Work happens in shareable threads across the VS Code extension and CLI, with subagents for parallelizable work and team visibility into how colleagues prompt. It's deliberately opinionated and token-hungry; credits are consumed at cost, so sustained heavy use gets expensive, and there's no BYO-key escape hatch.
Cursor is a fork of VS Code redesigned from the ground up for AI-powered development. It features tab completions, natural language code editing, codebase-wide chat, and multi-file editing. Its deep editor integration makes it one of the most polished AI coding tools available.
Both work with any OpenAI-compatible provider. Point the base URL at Standard Compute and get unlimited frontier-model compute from $9/mo flat — no per-token billing, no 429 rate limits.
Whichever AI agent you choose, Standard Compute gives you unlimited LLM compute at one flat monthly price. No rate limits, no per-token billing.
