Claude Code vs Amp Code

We built the same note-taking application twice, once with Claude Code and once with Amp Code. As a technical writing agency, we use coding agents to develop examples while focusing on client writing.

We skipped feature checklists. We wanted to know what matters three hours into debugging: Does thread visibility help teams or expose messy problem-solving? Do background tasks work, or require a lot of attention? When both use the same Claude models, why does the output feel different?

Our test project: React frontend, Express backend, full CRUD operations. We used the same prompt for both and tracked which tool we chose. This article covers UI generation quality, automation, privacy, permissions, cost transparency, context awareness, developer experience, and speed.

What are we comparing?

Comparing coding agents today is like comparing yellow bananas and red bananas. They look similar, do the same job, but taste different. At the end of the day, they're both bananas.

Claude Code and Amp both have the same foundational capabilities. Both use advanced reasoning models to understand codebases. MCP server integration provides filesystem access, database queries, and API integrations. Authentication, session management, repository connections, multi-file editing, and Git operations work identically. You can generate anything from simple scripts to full-stack applications with either tool. Every serious tool has figured out the basics: parsing codebases, maintaining context windows, executing commands, and generating code that compiles.

We're not listing the features both tools have. We focus on practical differences that change how you work: how detailed prompts need to be for usable output (especially UI work), whether sessions stay private or get shared with your team by default, what permission controls you get before the agent runs commands, how transparently each tool shows token consumption and costs, and how well they handle automation like background processes and long-running tasks.

UI generation quality: Claude Code

We gave both tools the same prompt to build a note-taking application:

Hi, I'd like you to build a full-stack note-taking application using React for the frontend and Express/Node.js for the backend. Users should be able to create notes with a title and body text, view all their notes in a list, edit existing notes, and delete notes they no longer need. For the backend, create a REST API with the standard CRUD endpoints and store the notes in memory using an array—no database needed for now. Each note should have an id, title, body, and creation timestamp. Make sure the frontend and backend communicate properly via API calls, add some basic styling so it looks presentable, include simple form validation, and provide a README with setup instructions so I can run it locally.

Amp Code finished in 2 minutes using 24,137 tokens at a cost of $0.20.

Claude Code took 3 minutes using around 38,000 tokens.

The phrase in the prompt add some basic styling so it looks presentable produced different results. Amp Code delivered a functional card-based interface with adequate styling but no background treatment or page-level design. Claude Code interpreted the same instruction as a complete page design with gradient backgrounds and a centered layout.

When working on frontend projects with Amp Code, we learned to be explicit: "Use a gradient purple background, center the content, add descriptive text, use light input fields." If you skip those details, you'll spend follow-up prompts fixing the visual design. Claude Code saves those revision cycles by inferring design decisions from vague instructions.

Automation: Claude Code

After both tools had built the note-taking app, we asked them to install the required dependencies, set up the application, and start the servers.

Amp Code installed the dependencies and configured the setup, but stopped when it came time to run the servers.

The agent can't monitor long-running processes. Once it starts a server, it loses the ability to check terminal logs or fix issues that appear during runtime. Amp is a new project, so this limitation will likely get addressed, but for now, you need to manually run servers and report errors back to the agent.

Claude Code handled the whole workflow without intervention.

It runs servers in background subprocesses, monitors their output, and continues working while processes run. This lets us build workflows like "create the app, start both servers, open Playwright, and run end-to-end tests to verify everything works." The agent executes the entire chain without stopping for manual steps.

Both tools support MCP servers for extended capabilities. The difference is that Claude Code can integrate them with background tasks to enable fully automated testing workflows. With Amp Code, you'll need to step in when long-running processes are involved.

This matters most when debugging. With Claude Code, we could say "start the dev server, check the browser console for errors, and fix any issues you find." With Amp Code, we had to run the server ourselves, copy error messages, and paste them back into the chat. Claude Code's background task support means you can integrate it into cron jobs or bash scripts.

Privacy: Amp Code

Amp Code shares your threads with your workspace by default. Every conversation, every debugging session, every half-formed idea becomes visible to your team the moment you start typing.

You can change visibility settings in the dashboard for each thread, but it requires manual configuration every time. This tells us Amp is designed for transparency. When it works, it's powerful. New team members can read how you solved the authentication bug instead of asking you to explain it again. Code reviewers see not just your final solution but the reasoning behind it and what the agent suggested that you rejected. Junior developers observe how senior engineers prompt effectively and learn more quickly than they would from documentation.

When it doesn't work, it feels invasive. That experimental feature you abandoned after two hours? Your team sees it. The moment you asked the agent a fundamental question about syntax you should have remembered? Visible. The thread where you asked Amp Code to fix your CI/CD pipeline script 10 times? Everyone knows.

Claude Code keeps everything local. Your conversations stay on your machine, even in organizations. No thread sharing, no visibility settings, no accidental exposure. This works when you're exploring ideas you're not ready to defend or working on sensitive codebases where conversation history matters.

The tradeoff is isolation. Knowledge stays in your head instead of spreading across the team. When you solve a tricky problem, the solution lives in your local history, not in searchable team threads.

Choose Amp Code if your team values learning from each other's work and you're comfortable with transparent development. Choose Claude Code if you need privacy for experimental work or handle sensitive codebases where conversation history requires protection.

Permissions: Amp Code

Claude Code interrupted us six times during a single automated testing session, requesting permission for each file write, each Git operation, and each server start. When you're running background tasks and walk away, you return to find the agent stalled, waiting for approval on command three of ten.

Amp Code asks once at startup: either allow all permissions or configure specific permissions. We selected "allow all" for testing and proceeded.

The granular option is available if needed. Edit /Users/$HOME/.config/amp/settings.json and specify exactly which commands the agent can run:

"amp.permissions": [
  {
    "tool": "Bash",
    "action": "allow",
    "matches": {
      "cmd": ["git push*", "git commit*"]
    }
  }
]

This tells us that Amp Code separates the security decision from the workflow. You configure permissions once, and then the agent runs without interruptions. It's useful when you're letting it work autonomously and don't want to track approvals.

Claude Code offers two modes: approve every action manually, or bypass all permissions with --permission-mode bypassPermissions. No middle ground. You can specify allowed tools with the --allowedTools flag, but it requires command-line configuration each time you start a session rather than a persistent config file.

The tradeoff: Amp's one-time setup means smoother interaction during active work, but you need to trust your initial configuration. Claude's repeated prompts are annoying, but you see exactly what the agent is doing before it happens.

For rapid iteration involving numerous file operations, Amp's approach is superior. For exploratory work on sensitive codebases, Claude might be appropriate.

Cost transparency and usage tracking: Amp Code

Amp Code shows cost and token usage in your terminal after every response. Our note-taking app prompt cost $0.20 and consumed 24,137 tokens. We saw these numbers immediately.

Claude Code requires checking the console after your session ends. You can run /context during a session to see current token usage, but not the cost.

If you're using API-based login, the Claude console shows spending after the fact.

Real-time tracking alerts you when context fills up. Large context windows degrade agent performance and increase hallucinations. Seeing 185k of 200k tokens used in your terminal means you know to start a fresh session before quality drops.

With Claude Code, you need to remember to run /context and interpret the numbers yourself. For budget-conscious work or long debugging sessions, Amp Code's constant visibility wins. You make decisions based on current costs, not yesterday's surprise bill.

Context awareness and multi-file editing: Amp Code

Amp Code spawns subagents that work in parallel to read files. When we asked it to debug the note-taking app, it launched multiple read operations simultaneously, each subagent returning file contents to the main agent for decision-making.

This parallel approach finished debugging tasks in 30 seconds compared to Claude Code's 95 seconds. The subagents prevent context contamination because each operates independently and then reports back. When one subagent reads a configuration file while another checks the API routes, they don't share context windows.

Claude Code processes files sequentially. It reads one file, adds it to the context, reads the next, and adds that to the context. By the third or fourth file in a large codebase, the context window fills, and autocompletion kicks in.

This shows us that Amp Code handles large codebases and multi-file operations more effectively. For debugging existing projects, reviewing pull requests across many files, or working with unfamiliar codebases, the parallel subagents save time and reduce hallucinations from context overload.

Developer experience: Claude Code

Both tool installations were straightforward. Both handle error messages well because they use the same Claude models. When we introduced a syntax error, both identified it and suggested identical fixes.

The differences emerge in terminal workflow polish. Claude Code offers 30+ slash commands (/help, /model, /context, /bug) with keyboard shortcuts that feel native to terminal users. You can press Escape to stop execution, Escape twice to jump to previous messages, Shift+drag to reference files. The /terminal-setup command auto-configures your shell for better line editing.

Amp Code delivers speed through parallel subagents and real-time cost tracking, but lacks the terminal polish. The interface works well, but Claude Code's command system, keyboard shortcuts, and extensibility through skills and hooks create a more refined developer experience for terminal-based workflows.

Claude Code lets us paste screenshots directly into the terminal for UI work, runs background processes for automated testing chains, and stores everything locally. Amp Code requires manual intervention when processes require monitoring and, by default, shares threads with your workspace, necessitating manual privacy configuration for sensitive work.

Both tools work as independent agents in subprocesses. You can integrate Claude Code into Python scripts (bypass permissions with the appropriate flags) or use Amp Code with commands like echo "commit all my unstaged changes" | amp -x --dangerously-allow-all for scripted workflows.

This tells us Claude Code prioritizes developer experience polish while Amp Code prioritizes speed and transparency. For terminal-based workflows where polish and customization matter, Claude Code's superior interface outweighs Amp's speed advantages. For team environments focused on cost visibility and collaboration, Amp's transparency wins despite the rougher terminal experience.

Final thoughts

After a few days of building with both tools, we keep coming back to one realization: the choice isn't about which tool is better, it's about which philosophy fits your workflow.

We found ourselves reaching for Amp Code when speed mattered. Those sub-agents tearing through files during debugging sessions saved us hours. The real-time cost tracking kept us accountable for token usage, and the granular permissions meant we could trust it with production codebases without constant oversight. But we had to learn to be more explicit about UI requirements, or we'd end up with functional but ugly interfaces.

Claude Code became our go-to for building new features from scratch. The UI quality out of the box meant fewer revision cycles, and the background task handling allowed us to step away while servers spun up and tests ran. The privacy-first approach felt right for experimental work where we didn't want half-baked ideas visible to the whole team.

The truth is, we still have both installed. Amp for fast iteration on existing code, Claude for thoughtful construction of new features. As both tools evolve, that gap might close. The best coding agent depends on your workflow. We use both.