Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon Q vs Sourcegraph Cody Enterprise comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon Q
Ranking in AI Code Assistants
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
3.7
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sourcegraph Cody Enterprise
Ranking in AI Code Assistants
10th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Code Review Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the AI Code Assistants category, the mindshare of Amazon Q is 7.9%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sourcegraph Cody Enterprise is 3.8%, down from 7.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
AI Code Assistants Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Amazon Q7.9%
Sourcegraph Cody Enterprise3.8%
Other88.3%
AI Code Assistants
 

Featured Reviews

Uday Boya - PeerSpot reviewer
Ai Research Enthusiast And Developer at ADP
Daily AI assistance has transformed debugging, automation, and rapid project delivery
One improvement for Amazon Q is that I use it in Visual Studio, and in Visual Studio, I am not given an option to upload an image in Amazon Q. Also, this is one part of it. The second part is the context window of Amazon Q is very less compared to other GenAI tools. The moment I would be in a deep research or deep development or deep debugging mode in Amazon Q, the moment I hit the context length of the window, it would ask me to clear the complete context, and it would lose the complete context of the chat that I had previously. The two major pain points are that I have Amazon Q in Visual Studio, but I am not given an option to upload an image as a reference in Amazon Q. The second part is the context window is so limited. The moment I deep dive into some discussion in terms of development or debugging or automation, I hit a context length of the window, and the moment I hit it, it would lose the complete context. It has an option of summarizing the complete context and having it as a memory, but it would not be sufficient because I would have given a lot of details in the chat by that time. I have mentioned the two points earlier, so those are the only two points that I have in mind for improvements needed for Amazon Q.
Use Sourcegraph Cody Enterprise?
Leave a review
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which AI Code Assistants solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Amazon Q?
While using Amazon Q, I faced some challenges, such as navigating the interface initially.
What is your primary use case for Amazon Q?
I have completed a project where the company required testing R&D on Kubernetes. I tested it locally by installing MiniKube, Kubernetes, and all the containers. I configured the Kubernetes MCB ...
What advice do you have for others considering Amazon Q?
I find Amazon Q easy to use, and I believe anyone can use it without needing extensive technical knowledge. I would definitely recommend Amazon Q to other people; it's a great tool. I find it quite...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Cody
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), GitHub, Google and others in AI Code Assistants. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.