Buyer guide · agentic harnesses
First week: Amp vs Claude Code
Amp and Claude Code both target terminal-first agent work, but install paths, billing (Amp credits/Orbs vs Claude Pro/Team pools), and review habits differ enough that a one-week pilot should decide — not a feature checklist.
Who this is for: Terminal-first developers choosing between Amp and Claude Code for their primary agent workflow — especially teams comparing Amp credits/Orbs billing against Claude Pro/Team pooled usage in the first week of real work.
What actually matters
- Install and auth paths differ: Amp’s ampcode.com web sign-in then `amp` vs Claude Code’s Pro/Team/API routes — confirm you can authenticate in one session.
- First-week cost includes subscription, credits/Orbs, API overage, and retry burn — not just the headline plan price.
- Both need the same review gate: plan, tool log, diff, tests before merge.
- Amp emphasises large-repo context and agent threads; Claude Code emphasises Anthropic integration depth — match to your repo size and workflow.
- SDK or headless use may require separate API keys and security review on either side.
- Dual-running without worktrees wastes money and creates duplicate edits.
ACE recommendation
Run the same three repository tasks on both for five days, track cost and review time, then pick one primary terminal agent — dual-running without worktrees wastes money and creates duplicate edits.
Set up the shortlist
Useful comparisons
How to run this decision
- 01Install both tools and complete authentication on your actual account tier (not a demo key).
- 02Pick three representative repository tasks: bug fix, small feature, multi-file refactor.
- 03Run each task on both Amp and Claude Code over five working days; log time, cost, and review minutes.
- 04Compare thread/session review UX — can you inspect plan and tool calls before accepting patches?
- 05Check whether SDK or CI integration needs a separate API key and loop security in if yes.
- 06Pick one primary terminal agent; document escalation rules for the other or decommission it.
Common pitfalls
- Deciding from a feature checklist without running real repo tasks for a week.
- Dual-running on the same branch — duplicate edits and unclear ownership.
- Ignoring Amp Orbs/credit mechanics until mid-month overage.
- Assuming Amp waits for tool approval — by default it does not; pilot on disposable clones and review SDK/headless keys before production.
- Choosing Amp for codebase search strength when your workflow is mostly greenfield files.
Ask before you buy
- Can you install and authenticate in one session — Amp web sign-in + `amp` vs Claude Code’s Pro/Team/API paths?
- What does the first week of real tasks cost: Amp subscription/credits/Orbs vs Claude’s included agent pool and API overage?
- Does your team review Amp threads and Claude sessions with the same plan/tool/diff gate before merge?
- Do you need Amp’s large-repo agent context or Anthropic’s Claude Code integration depth?
- Will SDK or headless use require separate API keys and security review on either side?
More buyer guides
Related decisions
Other harness buyer guides that answer the next question after this one.
Buyer guide
Editor vs terminal: which coding assistant workflow fits?
Choose the surface your team will actually use before comparing model quality.
Buyer guide
How to roll out an agentic harness without losing review discipline
A staged rollout pattern for teams that want speed without turning generated patches into unowned production risk.
Buyer guide
Agentic harness pricing: seats, tokens, and overage
Compare subscriptions and usage-based plans by the work they enable, not the number printed on the landing page.
Buyer guide
Coding-assistant myths in 2026: what the product pages blur
A myth-versus-reality check for coding assistants whose pricing, editor surfaces, privacy paths, and autonomy are easy to collapse into one misleading label.
Buyer guide
Enterprise AI coding assistant procurement checklist
A compact procurement block for security, legal, IT, and finance teams evaluating coding assistants beyond the demo and the seat price.
Buyer guide
Local LLM coding setup: Ollama, LM Studio, llama.cpp, and MLX
Pick a local inference stack and wire it to an agent harness without the usual traps — wrong ports, tiny default context, bad quants, and mismatched API prefixes that make agents look broken when the model is fine.