Head to head / curated pair / cycle 04
Claude Code vs Amp
Both products were given the identical 9 prompt vibeOps specification, 5 times each. Nothing on this page is an impression, all of it is a measurement from the same harness.
The highest strict pass rate in the agent group, and third highest in the whole index. It was the only agent that produced a signed webhook with a retry ladder in prompt 5 in all five runs without the criterion being restated, and the only one that added an idempotency key to the write path unprompted. It is a terminal agent with no interface of its own, so design and SEO reflect the stack it was pointed at rather than anything it invented.
One of the three fastest agents in the index and the one that wasted the least time on work nobody asked for. It runs at whatever model tier it judges the task needs, which is why the duration spread is tighter than the raw speed suggests. It has no interface of its own and does not pretend otherwise, so design and SEO track the stack rather than the tool.
Index gap
6.26
Claude Code leads
Axes won
9 / 1
Claude Code versus Amp, of ten axes
Faster median
Amp
39.7 s per prompt
Higher pass rate
Claude Code
91.1%
Every measurement, side by side
Cyan marks the better figure on each row. The delta column is the first product minus the second.
| Measurement | Claude Code | Amp | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite index | 80.30 | 74.04 | +6.26 |
| Agent performance (weight 18) | 95.0 | 85.0 | +10.00 |
| Reliability (weight 18) | 91.1 | 77.8 | +13.30 |
| Scalability (weight 13) | 86.0 | 74.0 | +12.00 |
| SEO and GEO (weight 12) | 62.0 | 56.0 | +6.00 |
| API and MCP (weight 9) | 78.0 | 72.0 | +6.00 |
| Integrations (weight 8) | 76.0 | 68.0 | +8.00 |
| Design output (weight 7) | 68.0 | 60.0 | +8.00 |
| Speed (weight 7) | 47.9 | 79.1 | -31.20 |
| Value (weight 5) | 80.0 | 76.0 | +4.00 |
| Code ownership (weight 3) | 99.0 | 98.0 | +1.00 |
| Median seconds per prompt | 65.5 | 39.7 | +25.80 |
| p10 seconds | 39.9 | 24.2 | +15.70 |
| p90 seconds | 100.7 | 64.4 | +36.30 |
| Executions failed | 1 | 4 | -3.00 |
| HTML bytes, no JS | 26.0 KB | 20.0 KB | +6144.00 |
| LCP milliseconds | 1,680 | 1,840 | -160.00 |
| CLS | 0.030 | 0.040 | -0.01 |
| Entry price EUR | 17.00 | 0.00 | +17.00 |
Screenshot diff
Both landing pages, captured by the lab on 14 Aug 2026 at 1440 by 900. Stored locally, never hotlinked.
Claude Code, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Amp, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Speed spread on a shared scale
Claude Code
39.9 / 65.5 / 100.7 seconds
Amp
24.2 / 39.7 / 64.4 seconds
Axis by axis, who wins
Claude Code wins 9 of 10
- Agent performance95.0
- Reliability91.1
- Scalability86.0
- SEO and GEO62.0
- API and MCP78.0
- Integrations76.0
- Design output68.0
- Value80.0
- Code ownership99.0
Amp wins 1 of 10
- Speed79.1
Verdict
Claude Code takes the composite by 6.26 points. It wins on the weighted total, but the axis table is where the real decision sits: Claude Code takes 9 axes and Amp takes 1.
If the work in front of you is mostly interface, weight the design and speed rows. If it is a product with an API, webhooks and background jobs, weight agent performance, reliability and the API and MCP row, which together carry 45 of the 100 index points. If the project has to outlive its vendor, read the code ownership row first and treat everything else as secondary.
Both products in this comparison were measured in the same cycle, on the same specification, by the same harness. The per run data for each is on its product page and in /api/runs.json.