Compare / Amp vs Continue
Amp vs Continue
Sourcegraph’s agent compared with an open IDE extension.
This page compares the structured fields and assessments for two listings.
It does not assign a score. Fields were last checked on each listing’s
verifiedAt date.
| Amp Verified | Continue Verified | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | Sourcegraph coding agent for editor, CLI, and repository context. | Open-source IDE agent for VS Code and JetBrains. |
| Layers | Execution, Orchestration | Execution |
| Model independence | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Deployment | Cloud | Self-hosted |
| Open source | No | Yes |
| License | Proprietary | Apache-2.0 (see repo) |
| Pricing model | Usage | Mixed |
Amp
Assessment
Amp uses Sourcegraph code intelligence for repository-scale context. The proprietary cloud product has editor and CLI surfaces; self-hosted Sourcegraph deployment is a different product. Pricing and routing are usage details to verify before budgeting.
Continue
Assessment
Continue remains a local IDE harness while the Cursor acquisition creates roadmap risk. It documents bring-your-own models and a public repository at verification. Factory orchestration sits outside the extension; Cursor's closed cloud runtime is separate.