Skip to main content

Amp vs Cursor: Cloud Agent Threads or an Agent Editor?

Cursor keeps agent work in one editor, and Amp gives each task its own cloud machine. Price, approvals, team spend controls, and review set them apart.

Reading time
3 min read
Sources
17 cited
In this piece

GILD verdict

Choose Cursor if engineers will adopt one editor with an agent built in, approvals on by default, and Bugbot reviewing pull requests.

Choose Amp if they will delegate whole tasks to cloud machines and review the results, especially on their own model keys or subscriptions. Run both on one repository and compare spend per accepted change.

Cursor suits teams that want agent work inside a VS Code-based editor, sold as seats with included usage. Amp suits teams that steer from its CLI, web, or apps and let each thread run in an orb. Both edit repositories and run commands locally or in the cloud, and Cursor adds a CLI and cloud agents. Amp bills inference to Amp credits or to users' own keys and subscriptions.

What teams report

Failures and incidents 1

  1. Embrace The RedOn Amp

    Rehberger found in July 2025 that Amp could write files outside the project folder without approval, letting a prompt injection add a malicious MCP server; Sourcegraph fixed it promptly.

    “The vulnerability was identified early July, reported to Sourcegraph and promptly fixed by the Amp team.”
    Johann Rehberger, Security researcher, Embrace The RedEmbrace The Red, , write-up

Run both 1

  1. Indeed

    In the talk DX published in June 2026, Indeed's agentic mix held a little Cursor and, at the bottom, Amp, beside mostly Claude Code; its developers use several tools at once.

    “So in our Agentic space, we used Cloud Code, Cursor, Amp, and Windsurf, and we made sure that any content that we created, whether it was a video or text or anything, we would always have examples of it in each of those, at least two of the actual tool…”
    Michael Redding, Principal Product Manager, IndeedDX Engineering Enablement podcast, , episode

Choosing between Amp and Cursor

Choose Amp if

  • Engineers hand off a full task and check only the finished change.
  • You want inference billed to your own API keys or to engineers' ChatGPT and Claude plans, with no Amp token fees.
  • You want a cloud machine per task that the team can test through a portal and share.

Choose Cursor if

  • Engineers want tab completion and the agent in the same editor.
  • You want terminal and MCP approvals on by default and a team spend limit on a Teams plan.
  • Engineers want pull request review from Bugbot alongside the agent.

Side by side

DimensionAmpCursor
Where it runsCLI, web app, macOS, iOS, and Android apps, runners, and orbs; no editor extension since March 5, 2026Its own desktop editor, a CLI, an agent in JetBrains IDEs, and cloud agents
Entry priceList prices in US dollars. The plans count included usage in different units.Hobby: free with your own keys or subscriptions; Individual (Megawatt): US$20 per monthPlus: US$8 per month, Grok models only, or Premium US$30, in the X Subscription Cursor announced Oct 12, 2026; Pro at US$20 is a legacy plan closed to new customers
Team priceTeams workspace at no extra charge, each member on any tier; Enterprise customTeams seats at US$30 (Premium), US$100 (Super), or US$200 (Ultra) per user per month in the X Subscription Cursor announced Oct 12, 2026; Standard US$40 and Premium US$120 seats apply only to teams created before it
Beyond the planPaid credits at providers' API prices with no markup outside Enterprise, plus orb minutesThird-party models at API list price from prepaid credit, plus US$0.25 per million tokens on eligible models for Teams and Enterprise; legacy plans bill on-demand usage in arrears
Cloud agentsOrbs: a cloud machine per thread with a terminal, portals to the running app, and a Ship buttonCloud agents started from the web, mobile, Slack, GitHub, or Linear
ApprovalsNone by default; a plugin can allow, reject, or modify each tool callTerminal commands and MCP tool calls need approval by default
Spend controlsPer-user entitlements on Enterprise onlyTeam limit, a default per-member limit, and per-member overrides on Teams; group-level spend limits on Enterprise
Pull request reviewNo review bot. Engineers check each thread's diff and ask the Oracle to review before shippingBugbot

What practitioners report, side by side

Each product's figures come from its own practitioners, for the group you pick.

AmpAmp Frontier Corporation+69 Strong positiveHow this figure is made
CursorAnysphere+11 MixedHow this figure is made
Whose sources to count
Compare Amp with
  • Cursor

Overall signal

All practitioners rate Amp +69, 63 points above Cursor at +6. Most of the gap is in praise, with 42 of Amp's 56 sources positive against 49 of Cursor's 117. Amp has 3 negative and Cursor 41.

The score counts the authors from all practitioners that take a side, one vote each with their latest view, and is how far positive votes lead negative ones, per 100 votes, so Amp's +69 rests on votes split 38 positive, 10 mixed and 3 negative and Cursor's +6 on 48, 27 and 41.

A lead of a fifth of the votes reads positive and a lead of half strong positive, with the same lines below zero. The dots show each source, positive, mixed, negative. Use a task pilot to measure accepted work and review time.

Footprint on the Agentic Software Development stack

They differ on two of 12 layers. On Codebase context, Amp supports it and Cursor is core. On Source control, Amp supports it and Cursor touches it. Coverage is each product's placement on this stack, as its product page shows it. Core is a job the product owns; Supports and Touches are jobs it helps with. Coverage says nothing about how well a product does them.

Layers where Amp and Cursor differ
LayerAmpCursor
Build
Codebase contextSupportsCore
Ship
Source controlSupportsTouches
The 10 layers where they match
Layers where Amp and Cursor match
LayerAmpCursor
Plan
Work planningSupportsSupports
Build
CodingCoreCore
Agent runtimeCoreCore
Tool executionSupportsSupports
Validate
DebuggingSupportsSupports
TestingSupportsSupports
Code reviewSupportsSupports
Application securityTouchesTouches
Ship
CI/CDTouchesTouches
Operate
ObservabilityTouchesTouches

What practitioners praise

Among all practitioners, Cursor alone has six praise themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Model Choice and Tab Completion lead, at 20 of 25 and 10 of 13. Both carry Value for Money. It is praised in 3 of the 9 Amp sources that discuss it, against 7 of 13 for Cursor. Amp alone has five praise themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Result Quality and Oracle & Model Routing lead, at 15 of 16 and 14 of 14.

What practitioners praise, All practitioners
Praised forAmpCursor
Value for Money3 of 97 of 13
Result Quality15 of 16Not a theme in its sources
Oracle & Model Routing14 of 14Not a theme in its sources
Developer Experience14 of 17Not a theme in its sources
Threads & Handoff13 of 13Not a theme in its sources
Orbs & Cloud Agents12 of 12Not a theme in its sources
Model ChoiceNot a theme in its sources20 of 25
Tab CompletionNot a theme in its sources10 of 13
Agent ExecutionNot a theme in its sources9 of 12
Codebase UnderstandingNot a theme in its sources9 of 15
Cloud AgentsNot a theme in its sources8 of 9
SpeedNot a theme in its sources8 of 10

Each count is the sources that praise a theme, or raise it as a concern, out of those that discuss it. A row pairs the two products when both carry a theme under the same or an equivalent name.

A count ending in "so far" has under 5 sources from 3 authors among all practitioners. "Not a theme in its sources" means GILD found no theme of that name in that product's sources.

What practitioners raise as concerns

Cursor's sources raise Usage / Cost more often than Amp's. It is raised in 11 of the 26 Amp sources that discuss it, against 25 of 35 for Cursor. Cursor alone has five concern themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Inconsistent Quality and Requires Strong Review lead, at 14 of 15 and 14 of 19.

What practitioners raise as concerns, All practitioners
Raised as a concernAmpCursor
Usage / Cost11 of 2625 of 35
Inconsistent QualityNot a theme in its sources14 of 15
Requires Strong Review1 of 3 so far14 of 19
Reliability & PerformanceNot a theme in its sources12 of 12
Needs Close Steering1 of 3 so far10 of 12
Editor Lock-inNot a theme in its sources7 of 11
Amp SignalsCursor Signals

17 sources

  1. Amp pricingOfficial documentationampcode.com
  2. Amp docs: PricingOfficial documentationampcode.com
  3. Amp docs: Orb sizes & costsOfficial documentationampcode.com
  4. Amp docs: IntroductionOfficial documentationampcode.com
  5. Amp docs: OrbsOfficial documentationampcode.com
  6. Amp docs: ToolsOfficial documentationampcode.com
  7. Amp docs: Workspace entitlementsOfficial documentationampcode.com
  8. Amp docs: Shipping changesOfficial documentationampcode.com
  9. Amp news: The Coding Agent Is Dead (Feb 19, 2026)Official documentationampcode.com
  10. Cursor pricingOfficial documentationcursor.com
  11. Cursor forum: Introducing The X Subscription, staff announcement (Oct 12, 2026)Official documentationforum.cursor.com
  12. Cursor docs: Models & pricingOfficial documentationcursor.com
  13. Cursor docs: AgentOfficial documentationcursor.com
  14. Cursor docs: Agent securityOfficial documentationcursor.com
  15. Cursor docs: Cloud agentsOfficial documentationcursor.com
  16. Cursor docs: BugbotOfficial documentationcursor.com
  17. Cursor docs: Teams pricingOfficial documentationcursor.com
Read the research