Amp vs FuXi (2026): Which Vibe Coding App Is Better?

Both are popular terminal coding agents. Here is how Amp and FuXi stack up on price, strengths and weaknesses, and which one we would pick.

Amp

Frontier coding agent for the terminal and editor, from the makers of Sourcegraph

8.2 /10

Pricing: Free plan, paid from $20/mo

Pros

Strong results on hard, multi-step tasks
Shared threads for team review
Subagents and AGENTS.md built in

Cons

Usage-based costs add up on large tasks
Fewer configuration knobs by design

Visit Amp ↗

FuXi

Provider-agnostic terminal coding agent positioned as a bring-your-own-model Claude Code alternative

7.0 /10

Pricing: Freemium

Pros

Feature-rich single static binary: 50+ tools, LSP diagnostics, Jupyter, browser automation, MCP client, durable sessions with checkpoints
Unusually transparent evaluation practice — publishes a reproducible, self-run benchmark against Claude Code with explicit caveats instead of a marketing score

Cons

Source code is proprietary despite living on GitHub — the repo hosts only docs, installers and the issue tracker, not the implementation
Installs via curl-pipe-to-shell, and ships a flag that bypasses all permission checks — treat it the way you would any command with root-level reach

Visit FuXi ↗

Amp vs FuXi at a glance

	Amp	FuXi
Editor score	8.2 / 10	7.0 / 10
Pricing model	Freemium	Freemium
Starting price	$20/mo	Free
Reader upvotes	0	0
Best for	terminal, agent	terminal-agent, provider-agnostic, mcp-client
Agent Skills support	Yes	No
Subagents support	Yes	No
MCP support	Yes	No
AGENTS.md support	Yes	No
Plugins support	Yes	No
Hooks support	No	No
Rules support	No	No
Agent skills in this directory	47	0
Subagents & agents in this directory	9	3
MCP servers in this directory	72	0

Our pick

Amp edges it with a score of 8.2 versus 7.0. Amp is the better fit if you value: strong results on hard, multi-step tasks, shared threads for team review. Choose FuXi instead if you need: feature-rich single static binary: 50+ tools, lsp diagnostics, jupyter, browser automation, mcp client, durable sessions with checkpoints, unusually transparent evaluation practice — publishes a reproducible, self-run benchmark against claude code with explicit caveats instead of a marketing score.