Bench test · AI Coding
Continue vs Sourcegraph Cody
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| Continue | Sourcegraph Cody | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score7.9/10 | score8.0/10 |
| agents won | 1 / 4 | 2 / 4 ▲ |
| from | Free | Free |
| free tier | yes | yes |
| category | AI Coding | AI Coding |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 7.6 | 8.2 ▲ |
| OpenAI | 7.6 | 7.6 |
| Gemini | 8.2 | 8.3 ▲ |
| Grok | 8.2 ▲ | 7.8 |
Continue
- ✓Open-source and privacy-focused
- ✓Works offline with local models
- ✓Flexible integration with multiple AI providers
- —Requires manual setup and configuration
- —Performance depends on selected model quality
- —Smaller community compared to GitHub Copilot
AI code completion and generationSupport for multiple LLM providersLocal and cloud model optionsCode refactoring and documentationChat-based code assistanceCustomizable prompts and workflows
Sourcegraph Cody
- ✓Superior context awareness across entire codebase
- ✓Reduces time on code comprehension and refactoring
- ✓Strong enterprise-grade security and privacy controls
- —Requires Sourcegraph instance setup for full functionality
- —Steeper learning curve compared to simpler assistants
- —Limited free tier compared to competitors
Codebase-aware code completion and generationSemantic code search and navigationAutomated refactoring and bug fixesMulti-file context understandingIDE and editor integrationsNatural language code explanations
Free · free tier
Try Continue ▸Free · free tier
Try Sourcegraph Cody ▸Verdict
Sourcegraph Cody takes it — 8 to 7.9 (a photo finish).
The panel gave Sourcegraph Cody the edge on 2 of 4 agents. It's close enough that Continue is a fair pick if it fits your workflow better.