Agentic harness comparison
Augment Code vs Claude Code
Compared on where each one runs, which editors it supports, how autonomous it is, and how it bills — the four things that actually decide Augment Code vs Claude Code. Rankings reflect fit and trade-offs, not a single universal winner; partner links, when present, do not replace that methodology.
Details last verified October 25, 2026
Augment
Augment Code
IDE extension, CLI, and cloud agents · Agentic
Anthropic
Claude Code
Terminal, IDE plugins, desktop, and browser · Agentic
| Specification | Augment Code | Claude Code |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | ||
| Vendor | Augment | Anthropic |
| Runs in | ||
| Runs in | IDE extension, CLI, and cloud agents | Terminal, IDE plugins, desktop, and browser |
| Editor support | ||
| Editor support | VS Code, JetBrains, Neovim / Vim, CLI, Cloud (Cosmos) | Terminal CLI, VS Code / Cursor, JetBrains, Desktop app, claude.ai/code |
| Autonomy | ||
| Autonomy | Agentic | Agentic |
| Pricing model | ||
| Pricing model | Hybrid | Hybrid |
| Requires changing editor | ||
| Requires changing editor | No | No |
Dates refer to the linked source’s publication or capture unless it explicitly states when the benchmark was measured. Values we could not confirm are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Augment Code
Augment offers Context Engine-assisted IDE/CLI workflows, Cosmos cloud agents and code review. Standard $20/month and Business $100/month are flat team plans for up to 50 seats with pooled included usage. Repo indexing is a product capability, not proof of task accuracy.
Best for
- Evaluating context tools for large codebases
- Teams considering pooled agent spend
- Piloting cloud agents and code review
Watch out
Standard includes $20 and Business $100 shared usage; Enterprise is custom. LLM use has a 40% fee over provider prices. Cosmos compute is $0.19/hour, rounded up to five-minute increments, with no added compute fee. Docs describe automatic pay-as-you-go billing after included usage; prepaid top-ups last 12 months. Review billing controls before enabling agents. Code Review is on all plans; advanced analytics, user allowlists and additional controls are Enterprise features. Paid-plan no-training terms do not imply zero retention. Model availability can vary by workspace and the default is last selection or organization policy. Current VS Code setup docs conflict with a vendor statement that non-enterprise standalone extension access ended July 1, so check account eligibility. Neovim/Vim, JetBrains and CLI integrations are documented. Vendor token-use comparisons are not independent task-success scores.
Claude Code
Anthropic's agentic coding tool runs in the terminal, supported IDEs, a desktop app and the browser. Configuration and permissions vary by surface and organisation. Subscription sign-in shares eligible Claude plan usage; Anthropic Console/API and third-party provider billing are separate paths.
Best for
- Multi-file refactors
- Migrations
- Delegated engineering tasks
Watch out
Claude Code is included with Pro, Max, Team and Enterprise; Free does not include it. Web prices: Pro $20/month or $200 billed yearly; Max 5x $100/month and Max 20x $200/month; Team Standard $25/seat/month or $20 with annual billing, Premium $125 or $100 respectively; Enterprise $20/seat/month with annual billing, a 20-seat minimum, plus API-rate usage (https://claude.com/pricing). API credentials use a separate Platform balance. The current page advertises $100/$200 monthly API credits on Max 5x/20x and up to $500 pooled Team API credits, subject to the linked conditions; these are not extra Claude Code message allowances. Model selection depends on account, user/org settings, provider and client version: Default is a recommended/account-configured choice, not a fixed model alias. Enterprise accounts can record a saved /model choice from v2.1.280; without an organisation default, Default can resolve to that choice and selecting Default does not erase it. Anthropic API opus and sonnet resolve to Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5. Sonnet 5.5 requires v2.1.284+, Opus 5.5 v2.1.280+. Third-party provider aliases can resolve to older versions. Fable normally resolves to Fable 5.1, except Claude apps gateway sessions use Fable 5; neither is an account-type default. Fable can bill to usage credits depending on plan and seat; the current model picker marks that requirement. The current referenced model documentation does not establish a universal 50% Max weekly entitlement, so check account eligibility instead of relying on an older quota claim. Interactive credit consent is not a guarantee for automation: non-interactive -p requests can bill credits without asking. Five-hour and weekly limits depend on plan/model; check the account usage page (https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config; https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-max-plan). Native Windows supports shell tools, but Claude's sandbox is available on macOS, Linux and WSL2, not native Windows or WSL1. It is off by default and covers shell execution, not every file tool, MCP server or hook (https://code.claude.com/docs/en/sandboxing).
Common questions
Augment Code vs Claude Code
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Do I have to change editor to use Augment Code or Claude Code?
How are Augment Code and Claude Code priced?
Is Augment Code or Claude Code better for large refactors?
Should I run Augment Code and Claude Code together?
Will my project rules transfer between Augment Code and Claude Code?
Does Claude Code require a Max plan?
Do coding agents replace code review?
Should we harden MCP before rolling out a coding agent?
Next step
Which one fits
Autonomy and editor constraints decide this far more reliably than a benchmark score.
If most of your week is small, frequent edits, an assistive workflow beats delegation and an agentic harness sits idle while billing. If you regularly hand over work spanning many files, the reverse is true.
Where one tool requires changing editor and the other does not, that difference usually outweighs any capability gap across a team — rollouts fail on adoption, not capability.
“Open vendor” links use a first-party redirect for click counting. They are not commissionable partner placements unless a programme is active for that vendor. Affiliate disclosure.