Compare / Amp vs Continue
Amp vs Continue
Sourcegraph’s agent versus the open IDE extension it used to neighbor.
This is a structured comparison of two listings, not a score. Read both
takes. Fields were last checked on each listing’s verifiedAt.
| Amp Verified | Continue Verified | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | Sourcegraph’s agent-native coding product, successor energy to Cody. | Open IDE agents, acquired by Cursor, source still public. |
| 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
Editorial take
Amp is what Sourcegraph wants the category to remember instead of Cody. The interesting claim is still context over a large codebase, not a new chat skin. We list Amp and not Cody to avoid a duplicate product. Pricing and model routing should be re-read on ampcode.com; we are not repeating credit-table screenshots.
Continue
Editorial take
Continue is the listing to keep watching after the Cursor acquisition: the question is whether the open extension stays a real product or becomes a compatibility shim. As of this verifiedAt it still documents BYO models and a public repo. It is not a factory. It is an IDE agent you can point at Ollama. Do not confuse it with Cursor’s closed cloud runtime.