We may earn a commission if you buy through links on this page. It never changes a score or a ranking. How we make money
Amp is a persistent-agent development environment with flexible runners and a free plan, with paid pricing starting at $20. Its pricing is worth checking before scaling, so teams looking to replace it may want a different cost model, workflow, or deployment option. The alternatives below range from repository-focused coding agents to self-hostable products. Starting prices alone do not establish real usage cost: check usage allowances, API and SDK access, and migration requirements against your workload before committing.
01Why people leave Amp
Hard to forecast costs at scale
Amp starts at $20 with a free plan, but its pricing warrants a closer look before scaling. Compare actual usage allowances, not just entry prices.
Need a different team workflow
Teams may prefer agents built around GitHub issues and pull requests, written specs, or delegated repository tasks.
Want deployment or model controls
If self-hosting or choosing among models matters, compare alternatives that list those capabilities and confirm the integration details before switching.
02The alternatives, ranked by fit
- Best for existing repositories
Claude CodeClaude CodeChoose Claude Code for work in existing repositories, issue-to-PR automation, or long-running refactors and migrations. It starts at $17 with a free plan, and its subscription usage limits need planning. The product has broad entry points, but confirm which API or SDK access, usage allowance, and repository setup your workflow requires before moving agent tasks from Amp.
Trade-off: Subscription usage limits require planning, and API details need checking.
7.5/10from
$17/mofree plan - Best for GitHub teams
GitHub CopilotGitHub CopilotGitHub Copilot is a fit when issues, pull requests, agent sessions, and change review already center on GitHub. It starts at $10 with a free plan. The product uses credits and has changing model limits, so estimate costs against your team's task volume and confirm current limits. Check which interfaces and integrations your existing Amp workflows depend on before switching.
Trade-off: Usage credits and changing model limits complicate cost planning.
7.8/10from
$10/mofree plan - Best for IDE and CLI
CursorCursorCursor suits developers who want IDE and CLI workflows for bounded coding tasks, with teams reviewing agent-generated pull requests. It starts at $8 with a free plan, but that entry price is not a usage estimate. Before replacing Amp, check the current limits and whether Cursor's interfaces cover your runners and team workflows; the product is positioned around code review as part of delegated work.
Trade-off: You need to review generated code and manage usage.
6.8/10from
$8/mofree plan - Best for self-hosting
FactoryFactoryFactory is worth evaluating if your team needs coding agents, model choice, enterprise controls, and a self-hostable option. Its listed starting price is $20. The product's usage allowances and integration details need confirmation, so ask about API and SDK access, deployment requirements, and production pricing. That diligence matters before moving persistent agent workflows and runner dependencies from Amp.
Trade-off: Confirm usage allowances and integrations before planning a migration.
7.0/10from
$20/mo - Best for spec-first workflows
KiroKiroKiro is a self-hostable option for teams that want to work from written specs, automate pull-request review in CI/CD, or choose a model. It starts at $20 with a free plan. Its credit meter makes usage a planning concern. Before replacing Amp, confirm the available API or SDK interfaces and how your existing agent tasks and runner setup would map to Kiro.
Trade-off: A credit meter means usage needs monitoring.
7.0/10from
$20/mofree plan - Best for delegated tasks
DevinDevinDevin fits teams delegating scoped repository tasks, supporting engineers through Slack or Teams, or automating routine CI fixes. It starts at $20 with a free plan and offers cloud and local coding agents with a pull-request workflow. Public detail on APIs and production limits is limited, so verify those requirements and expected costs before moving Amp workflows.
Trade-off: Public API and production-limit details are limited.
6.8/10from
$20/mofree plan - Best for large codebases
CodyCodyCody targets enterprise teams with many repositories, codebase-context needs, and large coordinated changes; it is also listed as self-hostable. Its starting price is not listed, and the stated $16,000 annual minimum makes it a poor fit for small projects. Ask about deployment, API and SDK access, and data export before assessing it as an Amp replacement.
Trade-off: The $16,000 annual minimum rules out many smaller projects.
7.0/10from
Custom
03Side by side
| Tool | Score | From | Free plan | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Amp Amp (current) | 7.1 | $20/mo | Yes | Developers who want persistent agents |
| Claude Code Claude Code | 7.5 | $17/mo | Yes | Developers working in existing repositories |
| GitHub Copilot GitHub Copilot | 7.8 | $10/mo | Yes | Teams already using GitHub issues and pull requests |
| Cursor Cursor | 6.8 | $8/mo | Yes | Developers delegating bounded coding tasks |
| Factory Factory | 7.0 | $20/mo | No | Engineering teams adopting coding agents |
| Kiro Kiro | 7.0 | $20/mo | Yes | Developers who work from written specs |
| Devin Devin | 6.8 | $20/mo | Yes | Teams delegating scoped repository tasks |
| Cody Cody | 7.0 | Custom | No | Enterprise teams with many repositories |
Questions people ask
Which Amp alternative is cheapest?
Among the alternatives with listed starting prices, Cursor starts at $8, GitHub Copilot at $10, and Claude Code at $17, each with a free plan. These are entry prices, not estimates of cost at your usage level. Compare the current usage limits and billing terms before choosing.
Which Amp alternatives are self-hostable?
Factory, Kiro, and Cody are listed as self-hostable. That label does not specify deployment requirements, supported models, or how API access works. Ask each vendor about hosting, data handling, integrations, and production costs before planning a migration from Amp.
What should I check before replacing Amp?
Map your Amp workflows, runner dependencies, and team processes to the alternative first. Then verify API and SDK access, usage limits, model availability, deployment options, and data export. Starting prices do not show what a production workload will cost, and some products require confirmation of integration details.