Hacker News Reader

I don’t know why amp isn’t talked about more. It’s better than Claude code.

It burns through credit too quickly. As a previous Sourcegraph Cody user, I was trying Amp first, but I've spent tens of dollars every day for the trial, and that was with an eye on the usage. It felt horrible seeing how I pay mostly for it's mistakes and the time it takes debugging. With CC, I can let go of the anxiety. I get several hours a day out of the Claude Pro plan and that's mostly good enough for now. If it's not, I'll upgrade to Max, as at $100 that's still less than what I'd have spent on Amp.

That's the thing for me too: I don't want to pay for the agent's mistakes, even if those mistakes are in part the fault of my prompt. I'm fine with having usage limits if it means I pay a fixed cost per month. Not sure how long this will last, considering how expensive all this is for the companies to run, though.

I feel like Amp's costs are actually in line with Sourcegraph's costs, and eventually Anthropic, OpenAI, et al. will all be charging a lot more than they are now.

It's the classic play to entice people to something for low cost, and then later ramp it up once they're hooked. Right now they can afford to burn VC money, but that won't last forever.

My AMP bill is less than Claude Code but I’m getting more work done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com