Sourcegraph

I worked with Sourcegraph only through the AI code assistant AMP, and I haven't used other products from Sourcegraph.

I did use Cody as well, in addition to AMP.

I used Cody integrated in IntelliJ IDEA, so I was using it as a chat, typing in a chat box. With AMP, it was more terminal-based, as far as I remember, but I wasn't using a specific code search feature.

Overall, Sourcegraph did save me time in my development process due to its capabilities in streamlined code discovery. It helped with discovering what's already in the codebase, accelerating development, reviewing afterwards, and producing results. I found I gained more value from both products as I got more experience with prompting.

The integration with Sourcegraph did help my development workflow. I had a fun experience developing with both AMP and Cody during last year in my previous job. I should mention that I hadn't used assistants before that, probably only GitHub Copilot in December 2024. Roughly, I've been consistently using an assistant only since last year. I started with Cody for roughly half a year, then switched to AMP in the middle of summer, so I basically transitioned from no assistant to using an assistant via these two products last year.

I did face some issues with Sourcegraph, such as making a lot of patches and upgrades very quickly. I was surprised in summer when they deprecated Cody, prompting me to switch to AMP, but I adapted. I think a few months later, they informed me I should update because they had a nice UI on the latest version of AMP. I was a little behind with updating it, so I had to ask them for instructions at some point, but I would say that is rather minor compared to the experience of using the assistant, especially considering I was using no assistant in 2024.

The interface of Sourcegraph was a bit unusual as it was more terminal-based, especially for AMP. Although it didn't stop me from working, I did find that sometimes the terminal-based UI would post sayings from people who used AI, and they were sometimes truncated, which made it difficult to read the full sentences. This is more of a nitpick, as in the grand scheme of things, my overall experience with it was positive.

I am currently working with Sourcegraph, as I installed AMP, an agentic assistant, last year for a few months. I used AMP, which is from Sourcegraph.

I used Sourcegraph's AMP in 2025 and stopped using it in the spring of this year because I changed jobs and have different requirements. We use different assistants in the new job.

I did contact Sourcegraph's technical support, and I remember interacting with one of the support members who gave me instructions on what to do. I don't remember all the details, but at that point, I managed to move past the issue. I didn't have a specific problem with it, but I needed to figure out a few steps to properly update it, which is why I reached out in the first place.

Cody came via a plugin in IntelliJ, and AMP was also in IntelliJ but more terminal-based. I recall running out of credits and purchasing $20 worth of more credits. The other options were a bit more restrictive, while Sourcegraph's approach was flexible, allowing me to pay as I needed more.

My recommendation to others reading reviews on PeerSpot is to note that switching from no assistant to having one was a big change for me. It wasn't straightforward, as I had to learn proper workflows for code review, but the switch to AMP was beneficial.

I would rate my experience with Sourcegraph around an 8 or 9 out of 10 overall. It was pretty good for that year. I'm using Copilot now, but it's a different year, and models have evolved, making it hard to compare.

For that year, I would give Sourcegraph a nine. I'd take one point off because I felt it was about communication; they were releasing many things, and I felt outdated quickly.