Is Amp the thing that supplanted Cody (which was either developed or acquired by Sourcegraph, can't remember)?
[deleted]
Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
11–20 of 42 posts
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#12Can folks who have compared Amp with other agents share their experience? Some of my colleagues swear this is the best agent out there.
It was really good in early stages (this past summer). But that was before Claude Code and Codex took off big time. I would say the biggest downside of Amp is that it’s expensive. Like running Opus the whole time expensive. But they don’t have their own model so what are you really paying for? Prompts? Not so sure. Amp is for people who are not smart enough to roll their own agents. So in that case, they shouldn’t be using agentic workflow.
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#13Can folks who have compared Amp with other agents share their experience? Some of my colleagues swear this is the best agent out there.
To be honest, I've gave it a try a couple of times, but it's so expensive I'm having a hard time even being able to judge it fairly. The first time I spent just $5, second $10 and the third time $20, but they all went by so fast I'm worried even if I find it great, it's way too expensive, and having a number tick up/down makes me nervous or something. And I'm the type of person who has ChatGPT Pro so I'm not exactly stingy with paying for things I find useful, but there is a limit somewhere and I guess for me Amp is that.
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#14Who is Amp’s competition?
Because if I understand them correctly, aren’t they a wrapper around all the major LLMs (focused specially on developer use cases?
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#15Is Amp the thing that supplanted Cody (which was either developed or acquired by Sourcegraph, can't remember)?
Yep, it was all developed by Sourcegraph in-house.
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#16Can folks who have compared Amp with other agents share their experience? Some of my colleagues swear this is the best agent out there.
To be honest, I've gave it a try a couple of times, but it's so expensive I'm having a hard time even being able to judge it fairly. The first time I spent just $5, second $10 and the third time $20, but they all went by so fast I'm worried even if I find it great, it's way too expensive, and having a number tick up/down makes me nervous or something. And I'm the type of person who has ChatGPT Pro so I'm not exactly…
It sounds like you're being temporarily stingy due to having ChatGPT Pro. Might be good to get rid of it if you think the grass might be greener outside of Codex.
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#17Can folks who have compared Amp with other agents share their experience? Some of my colleagues swear this is the best agent out there.
As someone who switches between most CLIs to compare, Amp is still on top, costs more, but has the best results. The librarian and oracle make it leagues ahead of the competition.
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#18I do wonder what the moat is around this class of products (call it "coding agents").
My intuition is that it's not deep... the differentiating factor is "regular" (non LLM) code which assembles the LLM context and invokes the LLM in a loop.
Claude/Codex have some advantage, because they can RLHF/finetune better than others. But ultimately this is about context assembly and prompting.
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, I've gave it a try a couple of times, but it's so expensive I'm having a hard time even being able to judge it fairly. The first time I spent just $5, second $10 and the third time $20, but they all went by so fast I'm worried even if I find it great, it's way too expensive, and having a number tick up/down makes me nervous or something. And I'm the type of person who has ChatGPT Pro so I'm not exactly…
It sounds like you're being temporarily stingy due to having ChatGPT Pro. Might be good to get rid of it if you think the grass might be greener outside of Codex.
No, ChatGPT Pro was an example that I'm not stingy to pay for things I find useful. I'm also paying for Gemini, Claude and other types of software to do my job, not even just coding. But even if I do, I still find Amp too expensive to be able to use for anything useful.
I run every single coding prompt through Codex, Claude Code, Qwen and Gemini, compare which one gives me the best and go ahead with using that one. Maybe I go with Codex 60% of the times, Claude 20% and Qwen/Gemini the remaining 20%, not often at all either of them get enough right. I've tried integrating Amp into my workflow too, but as mentioned, too expensive. I do think the grass is currently the greenest with Codex, still.
Re: Amp, Inc. – Amp is spinning out of Sourcegraph
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you're being temporarily stingy due to having ChatGPT Pro. Might be good to get rid of it if you think the grass might be greener outside of Codex.
No, ChatGPT Pro was an example that I'm not stingy to pay for things I find useful. I'm also paying for Gemini, Claude and other types of software to do my job, not even just coding. But even if I do, I still find Amp too expensive to be able to use for anything useful. I run every single coding prompt through Codex, Claude Code, Qwen and Gemini, compare which one gives me the best and go ahead with using that one. M…
It depends on your perspective. From a startup perspective, this makes you a less interesting potential customer, to which one might attach the term stingy. From a perspective of willingness to invest in your own productivity it doesn't sound stingy, though.