Development Tools · head to head
Sourcegraph vs Cody
Sourcegraph
Development Tools
Code search and intelligence platform for large codebases with Cody AI assistant
- From
- $16000/year
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Only Cody has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
- Each has a real cost: Sourcegraph enterprise pricing starting at $16k annually creates significant barrier for small teams; Cody sourcegraph now publishes a single Enterprise plan starting at $16K, with no free or individual Pro tier listed on the pricing page
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Sourcegraph and Cody actually diverge.
| Attribute | Sourcegraph | Cody |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | $16000/year | Free |
| Pricing model | subscription | freemium |
| Free tier | No | Yes |
| Platforms | Cloud, Self-hosted | Web |
| Founded | Unknown | 2013 |
Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated), category (Development Tools).
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
Sourcegraph
- Large-scale code migrations across hundreds of repositoriesnot Cody
- Enterprise governance and code ownership trackingnot Cody
- AI-assisted bug hunting and security pattern detectionnot Cody
- Onboarding engineers into large unfamiliar codebasesnot Cody
- Regulatory compliance and code audit trailsnot Cody
Cody
- AI code assistance with context drawn from a whole private codebasenot Sourcegraph
- Code search and navigation across many repositoriesnot Sourcegraph
- Large scale code migrations and modernisation with Batch Changesnot Sourcegraph
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Sourcegraph
- Enterprise pricing starting at $16k annually creates significant barrier for small teams
- No free tier or standard plan published; all options require custom sales engagement
- Complex enterprise-only positioning limits adoption compared to GitHub Copilot's pervasiveness
- Requires indexing entire codebase; not suitable for small or ephemeral projects
Cody
- Sourcegraph now publishes a single Enterprise plan starting at $16K, with no free or individual Pro tier listed on the pricing page
- sourcegraph.com/cody redirects to the documentation rather than a Cody product or pricing page
- AI features are metered as credits included per user, and exceeding the allocation requires buying a higher volume bucket
- Volume credit buckets are sold as an add-on rather than included
- A customer success manager and premium support are optional paid extras on top of the Enterprise plan
- Standard support is 24x5 rather than 24x7, with round-the-clock coverage sold as an upgrade
- The published $16K figure is a starting price that scales with team size, so the actual cost is quoted rather than listed
Pricing, plan by plan
Sourcegraph
$16000/year- Enterprise$16000/year
- Scales with team size
- Credits for AI features per user
- Deep Search
Cody
FreeNo published plan breakdown. See the Cody review.
Which should you pick?
Questions people ask
- Is Sourcegraph or Cody better?
- Neither clearly leads. Sourcegraph starts at $16000/year and Cody at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Sourcegraph or Cody?
- Cody has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at $16000/year for Sourcegraph and Free for Cody.
- Does Sourcegraph or Cody run on more platforms?
- Sourcegraph runs on Cloud, Self-hosted. Cody runs on Web.
- Can I use Cody for free?
- Yes. Cody has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Sourcegraph starts at $16000/year.
- What is Sourcegraph best used for?
- Sourcegraph is most often used for large-scale code migrations across hundreds of repositories, enterprise governance and code ownership tracking, ai-assisted bug hunting and security pattern detection, onboarding engineers into large unfamiliar codebases. Of those, large-scale code migrations across hundreds of repositories and enterprise governance and code ownership tracking are not what Cody is typically brought in for.