Mimo Code and AmpCode get compared in feature lists that ignore how teams actually work. This page is a decision memo: what each is for, what only one of them does well, and which should be your default.
Mimo Code is a Terminal agent aimed at Vision-capable OpenCode fork (Free (BYO keys)). AmpCode is a Terminal + IDE agent aimed at Unconstrained agentic coding with multi-model routing (Pay-as-you-go (free tier ~$10/day)).
Quick verdict
Default for most teams reading this angle: Mimo Code — vision / screenshot understanding. Keep AmpCode as a specialist when its unique strengths matter.
| Mimo Code | AmpCode | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Terminal agent | Terminal + IDE agent |
| Pricing | Free (BYO keys) | Pay-as-you-go (free tier ~$10/day) |
| Open source | Yes | No |
| Best for | Vision-capable OpenCode fork | Unconstrained agentic coding with multi-model routing |
| SWE-bench (if published) | - | - |
Feature matrix
| Capability | Mimo Code | AmpCode |
|---|---|---|
| Vision / screenshots | Yes | No |
| Cron / scheduling | No | No |
| Multi-provider routing | Yes | Yes |
| Git integration | Yes | Yes |
| Plugins / skills | Yes | Yes |
| Subagents / teams | No | Yes |
| Background tasks | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first | Yes | No |
IDE daily driver vs terminal agent
Mimo Code is positioned as Terminal agent. AmpCode is Terminal + IDE agent.
IDE-shaped tools win for tight edit loops (see the diff, jump files). Terminal agents win for long jobs you can detach (migrations, CI babysitting). Many teams should run both lanes, not pick a religion.
Default: put interactive day-to-day work in the IDE-shaped tool, and long-horizon automation in the terminal agent—if both can do either, pick by where your team already stares six hours a day.
Strengths (from product positioning)
Mimo Code
Pros: OpenCode fork with vision support; Reasoning model integration; Active development.
Cons: Smaller community than OpenCode; No subagents; No cron.
AmpCode
Pros: Multi-model routing; Unconstrained token usage; Free daily credits; Team thread sharing; Code review built-in.
Cons: Pay-as-you-go costs unpredictable; Free tier closed to new signups; No flat subscription option; VS Code extension deprecated.
Public adoption (when we have it)
We do not invent download or star counts. See the live open-source agent leaderboard for the latest multi-signal snapshot (stars, commits, package downloads).
Install / source paths
Mimo Code
- Check the project site / GitHub for current install steps (CLI packages change often).
AmpCode
- Check the project site / GitHub for current install steps (CLI packages change often).
Always confirm install commands on the upstream repo—package names move.
When to choose which
Choose Mimo Code when
- Your main job is Open-source agent with vision capabilities
- You need vision / screenshot understanding or local-first execution (which AmpCode lacks in our matrix)
- You can live with: Smaller community than OpenCode; No subagents
Choose AmpCode when
- Your main job is Maximum capability, variable billing
- You need subagents / agent teams (which Mimo Code lacks in our matrix)
- You can live with: Pay-as-you-go costs unpredictable; Free tier closed to new signups
Use both when
- Interactive coding and long unattended jobs are different lanes on your team
- You are migrating and need a temporary dual stack
- Compliance needs a local-first path even if daily work is commercial
Three jobs to run before you standardize
- Parallel tickets: fan out lint/docs/tests. Prefer AmpCode with separate worktrees. Keep Mimo Code for a single deep refactor.
- Daily edits: stay in AmpCode. Long migrate / CI loop: hand off to Mimo Code if it is the stronger terminal agent.
Record: default tool, specialist tool, and forbidden actions (e.g. no prod deploys without a human). Put that in AGENTS.md.
FAQ
Can I run Mimo Code and AmpCode side by side?
Yes. Use separate worktrees or clones so they never write the same files concurrently.
Which is cheaper?
Both pricing lines are above. Model your spike week (tokens × retries × seats). See the pricing guide.
Does SWE-bench decide this?
Mimo Code has no solid public SWE-bench in our dataset. AmpCode has no solid public SWE-bench in our dataset. Benchmarks under-predict IDE feel, Windows reliability, and cron ops.
Where next?
Bottom line
Start with Mimo Code for this decision (vision / screenshot understanding). Keep AmpCode when you need its unique strengths: subagents / agent teams. Revisit when pricing, models, or your job mix changes.
Related articles
- Open source vs commercial coding agents: operator fit, not ideology
- Claude Code vs Mimo Code: open source vs commercial tradeoffs
- Coding agents vs GitHub Copilot: autocomplete is not an agent
Comparing agents is half the work. aiFiesta can simplify multi-model access while you test workflows.
Operator notes that usually get skipped
Permissions: Agents with shell access can delete work as easily as they write them. Prefer clear approval prompts and deny-by-default for network and production credentials. Mimo Code and AmpCode both need an explicit policy for force-push, .env reads, and cloud deploys.
Windows vs macOS: Path separators, PowerShell vs bash, and orphaned child processes still decide winners more often than marketing benchmarks. Run the same three jobs on the OS your team ships on before you standardize on Mimo Code or AmpCode.
Lockfiles: Never run two agents against the same package-lock / pnpm-lock / Cargo.lock concurrently. That failure mode looks like “the agent is dumb” when it is really shared mutable state. Give Mimo Code and AmpCode separate worktrees.
Memory vs amnesia: Mimo Code is positioned for Vision-capable OpenCode fork; AmpCode for Unconstrained agentic coding with multi-model routing. Long-running memory or knowledge features only pay off if you invest in what they store; otherwise you pay complexity for zero retention.
Escape hatch: Can you export history, pin versions, and keep working if a model vendor deprecates a SKU next quarter? Multi-provider (Yes vs Yes) and open source (Yes vs No) matter more here than any single benchmark number.
Team rollout: Pick one default (Mimo Code), one specialist, document forbidden actions, and revisit quarterly. Tooling churn is faster than most internal standards documents.