[rondar](/)

[Product](/)[Pricing](/pricing)[Demo](/demo)[Docs](/docs)[Contact](/contact)

[Sign in](/access#access-sign-in)[Request an invite](/access)

[Product](/)[Pricing](/pricing)[Demo](/demo)[Docs](/docs)[Contact](/contact)[Sign in](/access#access-sign-in)

Hands-on test · October 13-14, 2026

# Rondar vs Amp

Both finished all seven tasks with correct results. Rondar was faster on tasks 1–6, and it was the only one that could combine four pull requests into one release.

The two products ran on different machines, so the times say as much about the machine as about the product.

Task Rondar  Amp · minutes

1. App running

Rondar:**9.0**setup 8, first preview 0.5Amp:**17.5**

2. Footer date

Rondar:**3.8**Amp:**8.5**

3. Paging bug

Rondar:**1.2**Amp:**3.5**

4. Corrections form

Rondar:**10.0**asked one questionAmp:**15.5**decided alone

5. Three tasks at once (slowest)

Rondar:**4.7**Amp:**9.0**

6. Correction after review

Rondar:**4.3**Amp:**6.0**

7. Change on main

Rondar:**~1**first Merge press failedAmp:**<2**one press of Ship

8. Release of several changes

Rondar:**9.0**4 PRs combined, checks run, mergedAmp:**Not offered**

**Preview of the running app**

Both · Amp always on

**Pull request per session**

Rondar, by itself

**Price**

Amp has a free plan · Rondar from $20

## How to read these results

The machines were not the same, so a coding time says more about the machine than about the product.

Only Rondar had real GitHub checks turned on. They failed on main for a reason that had nothing to do with the tasks, so Rondar repaired that failure inside every pull request. That added minutes to Rondar's times.

Only Rondar ran task 8, because Amp and T3 Code do not offer a release of several changes.

## Where Amp is better

- Amp has a free plan. Rondar has no free plan: an invitation gives a free pilot, and after the pilot the plans start at $20 a month.

- Anyone can sign up for Amp today, while Rondar is in an invite-only alpha.

- Amp has recurring tasks and coordination across projects. It also works in more clients than Rondar and has more features for people who work on the same code together.

- In Amp, you could click through the app from the start. In Rondar, project setup took 8 minutes before Rondar could run the app the first time, and starting it then took 30 seconds.

- In task 7, Amp put the change on main with one press of Ship. Rondar's first press of Merge failed, and the step took about a minute in total.

## How we tested

Tested on October 13-14, 2026. The same seven tasks ran on a private copy of a real Rails-style web app with one planted paging bug, with the same prompt text for each product.

Amp used its own agent in "medium" mode on Amp's hosted machine. Rondar used Claude Opus 5.5 on Rondar's production servers, with 1.5 CPU and 4 GB per session.

Prices and features of Amp come from this test and from [its official site](https://ampcode.com). See [Amp pricing](https://ampcode.com/pricing) and [Rondar pricing](/pricing).

## On this page

[Results](#results)[How to read these results](#reading)[Where Amp is better](#behind)[How we tested](#tested)

[Request an invite](/access)

[rondar](/)© 2026 Rondar

[Docs](/docs)[Pricing](/pricing)[Demo](/demo)[Rondar vs Amp](/compare/amp)[Rondar vs T3 Code](/compare/t3-code)[Rondar vs OpenHands](/compare/openhands)[Contact](/contact)[Security](/security)