Amp vs Cursor 2.0
Amp and Cursor 2.0 are both Code Generation tools in our directory. This side-by-side comparison covers pricing, user ratings, supported platforms, key features and open-source status so you can decide which one fits your needs.
Side-by-side comparison
| Attribute | Amp | Cursor 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Sourcegraph | Anysphere |
| Rating | ★ 4.5 | ★ 4.6 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Platforms | IDE, CLI, Web | Desktop |
| Key features | Graph-aware coding agent, Edits, tests and PRs, Sourcegraph code intelligence | Multi-agent parallel runs, Side-by-side diff review, Composer mode |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, USA | San Francisco, USA |
| Founded | 2025 | 2025 |
| Open source | No | No |
Key differences
- Cursor 2.0 has a higher user rating (4.6★ vs 4.5★).
- Both Amp and Cursor 2.0 use a Paid model.
- Amp runs on IDE, CLI, Web; Cursor 2.0 runs on Desktop.
Frequently asked questions
Is Amp or Cursor 2.0 better?
By user rating, Cursor 2.0 scores higher (4.6★ vs 4.5★). Both are capable Code Generation tools, so review the feature comparison for your use case.
Which is cheaper, Amp or Cursor 2.0?
Both Amp and Cursor 2.0 use a Paid pricing model.
Are Amp and Cursor 2.0 open source?
No — neither Amp nor Cursor 2.0 is open source.