Amp Reviews (2026): Features, Pricing, Pros & Cons

If you’ve tried a few AI coding assistants and still feel like you’re “prompting” more than building, Amp (Ampcode by Sourcegraph) is aimed at a different workflow: an agent that can run tools, read and change files, execute commands, and coordinate multi-step work from a single thread.

In this review, I’ll break down what Amp is best at, where it falls short, what its pricing model looks like (including the daily free grant + credits), and which alternatives you should consider depending on your stack and team needs.

If your team is also optimizing growth pages, you might want to check our Instapage pricing (2026) breakdown before you commit to a landing page stack.”

Amp is a “frontier” AI coding agent built by Sourcegraph. You can use it through:

• a VS Code extension (or compatible forks), and
• a CLI tool (handy for terminal-first workflows).

Unlike basic autocomplete tools, Amp is designed to operate in threads (conversations) that can include tool calls, file context, and iterative fixes—like “run tests and fix failures” or “fix all TypeScript errors.”

It also supports agent-style concepts like subagents and an “oracle” mode for deeper review-style prompts.

Key Features

1) Tool-using agent workflows (not just chat)

Amp can do tasks that look like real engineering loops (tests → errors → patch → retest) instead of stopping at “here’s what you should do.” The security documentation describes how Amp Client and Amp Server work together, with the client collecting relevant context and the server proxying requests to model providers.

2) Thread sharing + multi-step collaboration

Amp threads can be stored and shared (with privacy controls), which is useful when teammates want to review “how we got there,” not just the final diff. Thread data includes prompts, model responses, snippets/files used as context, tool call results, attachments, etc.

3) Security & enterprise controls

If you care about security posture, Amp publishes a detailed Security Reference (this is a good sign for teams). Highlights include:

• SOC 2 Type II mentioned in the security reference
• Clear explanation that Amp does not clone/index the entire codebase and that only “partial code data” (snippets/files selected as context) may be processed
• Enterprise plan notes: “zero data retention” for text inputs on providers (per their security reference)
• SSO / Directory Sync support via WorkOS on Enterprise
• Secret redaction to prevent secrets from entering threads/models (best-effort, with listed limitations)

4) Model/provider transparency

Amp lists infrastructure/providers (GCP, Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI, Bedrock, etc.) and explains what “partial code data” means and where things are hosted.

Pricing (What you actually pay)

Amp’s pricing is not a classic “$X per seat per month” model.

• Amp explicitly mentions it doesn’t have monthly subscription plans in the same way many SaaS tools do.
• New users get a daily free grant (noted as $10/day) supported by ads.
• You then typically pay by usage/credits, with optional “top-ups.” (Amp explains this concept and how the free daily grant works.)
• Enterprise workspaces can disable ad-supported free usage (“Daily Grant”) for members.

Practical takeaway: If you code lightly or you’re experimenting, the daily grant may cover a meaningful amount. If you run heavy agent loops (tests + refactors + multi-file changes), you should expect usage-based costs.

Pros & Cons

Pros

• Agent-style workflows (multi-step, tool-using) instead of “one-shot answers.”
• Serious security documentation and enterprise controls (SSO, retention notes, audit/logging mentions).
• CLI + VS Code options for different workflows.
• Secret redaction built into the system (with transparency about limitations).

Cons

• No BYOK and no self-hosted deployments (so if your org requires BYOK/self-hosting, that’s a blocker).
• Usage pricing can feel less predictable than flat monthly seats (depending on volume).
• “Agent power” also means you must be disciplined: permissions, reviewing diffs, and managing what the agent can access.

Amp vs Alternatives (Quick Comparison)

If you’re also comparing AI meeting tools, link readers naturally like: “If you’re optimizing your team workflow beyond code, our guide to theBest AI Meeting Assistants in 2026 (Notes, Summaries & Action Items) is a good next read.”

Who is Amp best for?

• Engineers who want a hands-on coding agent that can run commands, fix tests, and ship multi-file changes.
• Teams that need security posture clarity and documented practices.
• Anyone who prefers working inside VS Code or from the terminal.

When you should skip Amp

• If your company requires Bring Your Own Key or self-hosted AI tooling → Amp doesn’t support that.
• If you need predictable monthly budgeting and you expect huge usage spikes → usage-based costs may be harder to forecast.

FAQ ?

Conclusion

Amp is a strong option if you want an AI coding agent (not just autocomplete) and you value clear security documentation, threaded workflows, and tool execution through VS Code/CLI.
The biggest “make-or-break” is whether you can accept cloud-only + no BYOK/self-hosting, and whether usage-based costs fit your budget style.

For anyone comparing tools beyond engineering, our GoDaddy vs Hostinger (2026): Which Web Host Is Better for Speed, Support & Value? guide can help you choose a hosting setup that won’t slow your site down.”