Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Sourcegraph vs Thought Machine

Sourcegraph logo

Sourcegraph

Developer Tools

Code search and intelligence platform for large codebases with Cody AI assistant

From
$16000/year
Free plan
No
Full reviewWebsite
Thought Machine logo

Thought Machine

Technology

Cloud native core banking where products are written as smart contracts

From
On request
Free plan
No
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Sourcegraph enterprise pricing starting at $16k annually creates significant barrier for small teams; Thought Machine a core replacement is a two to four year programme at an established bank, and the licence is a minority of total cost against system integrator fees, parallel running and data migration.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Sourcegraph and Thought Machine actually diverge.

Attributes where Sourcegraph and Thought Machine differ
AttributeSourcegraphThought Machine
Starting price$16000/yearOn request
Pricing modelsubscriptionquote
PlatformsCloud, Self-hostedWeb, API, Cloud
CategoryDeveloper ToolsTechnology

Identical on both: free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Sourcegraph

Nothing recorded that Thought Machine does not also cover.

Only in Thought Machine

  • Smart contract product engine
  • Cloud native architecture
  • Real time ledger
  • Vault Payments
  • API first design
  • Multi entity and multi currency
  • Product versioning and testing
  • Configurable posting rules

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 Thought Machine
  • Enterprise governance and code ownership trackingnot Thought Machine
  • AI-assisted bug hunting and security pattern detectionnot Thought Machine
  • Onboarding engineers into large unfamiliar codebasesnot Thought Machine
  • Regulatory compliance and code audit trailsnot Thought Machine

Thought Machine

  • A large bank launching a separate digital brand on a clean core rather than migrating the back booknot Sourcegraph
  • A bank whose product launches are blocked by vendor change requests on a legacy corenot Sourcegraph
  • An institution needing real time balances and postings for instant payment obligationsnot Sourcegraph
  • A group consolidating multiple country cores onto one multi entity platformnot 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

Thought Machine

  • A core replacement is a two to four year programme at an established bank, and the licence is a minority of total cost against system integrator fees, parallel running and data migration.
  • The smart contract model presumes a bank can write and maintain Python financial products, and institutions without that engineering capability end up outsourcing the very flexibility they bought.
  • Cloud infrastructure cost sits with the bank and is not trivial at scale, so total cost of ownership comparisons against a hosted legacy core often miss a large recurring line.
  • Thought Machine has made two rounds of job cuts pursuing profitability, which is a legitimate supplier stability concern for a system a bank expects to run for fifteen years.
  • The functional footprint is core ledger and product engine, so origination, collections, regulatory reporting and channels all come from other vendors, and the integration estate around Vault is the bank's problem to design and own.

Pricing, plan by plan

Sourcegraph

$16000/year
  • Enterprise$16000/year
    • Scales with team size
    • Credits for AI features per user
    • Deep Search

Thought Machine

On request
  • Vault Core$undefined/year
    • Quoted per institution, typically on account volumes or annual contract value
    • Implementation and system integrator costs commonly exceed the licence fee
    • Cloud infrastructure costs are the bank's and are not included

Which should you pick?

Choose Sourcegraph if

  • You work on Cloud, Self-hosted.
Sourcegraph review

Choose Thought Machine if

  • You need smart contract product engine.
  • You work on Web, API, Cloud.
  • You also want cloud native architecture.
Thought Machine review

Questions people ask

Is Sourcegraph or Thought Machine better?
Neither clearly leads. Sourcegraph starts at $16000/year and Thought Machine at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Sourcegraph or Thought Machine?
Sourcegraph starts at $16000/year and Thought Machine at On request.
Does Sourcegraph or Thought Machine run on more platforms?
Sourcegraph runs on Cloud, Self-hosted. Thought Machine runs on Web, API, Cloud.
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 Thought Machine is typically brought in for.
What can Sourcegraph do that Thought Machine cannot?
Thought Machine covers Smart contract product engine, Cloud native architecture, Real time ledger, Vault Payments.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Thought Machine: Is Vault Core genuinely cloud native?

Yes. It is containerised, runs on Kubernetes on public cloud, and posts in real time rather than in overnight batch.

Thought Machine: How long does a migration take?

Eighteen months at the absolute fastest for a narrow greenfield launch; two to four years for a phased migration at an established bank.

Thought Machine: Does the licence fee represent the total cost?

No. Implementation, system integration, parallel running and cloud infrastructure typically cost more than the licence over the programme.

Share

Related pages

More on Sourcegraph

More on Thought Machine

Keep looking

Other head to heads