Comparison
Groq vs Sourcegraph Cody: which one to choose in 2026?
Groq and Sourcegraph Cody are two comparable tools. Here's the head-to-head, criterion by criterion, to choose based on your real-world use.
Detailed comparison
| Criterion |  Sourcegraph Cody | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Freemium | Paid |
| Price | Free (30 req/min) · usage-based: Llama 8B $0.05/$0.08 · 70B $0.59/$0.79 per M tokens | Free/Pro discontinued (Jul 2025) · enterprise only (~$59/user/mo, unpublished) · individual successor: Amp |
| Level | Pro | Pro |
| Verdict | Recommended | Solid |
| Best for | Developers who want near-instant AI responses at low cost. | Large teams/enterprises with big monorepos to understand and evolve. |
| Categories | Code, Chatbots & assistants | Code |
Each tool in brief
Strengths
- Exceptional inference speed
- Very low per-token price
- Generous free quota
- Ideal for real time
Weaknesses
- Mostly open-source models
- Developer audience (API)
- No flagship proprietary models
Who is it for? Developers who want near-instant AI responses at low cost.
Strengths
- Cross-repo intelligence (monorepos)
- Grounded in the whole codebase
- Built for large teams
Weaknesses
- Individual tier discontinued (enterprise only)
- Individuals pointed to Amp
- No consumer pricing
Who is it for? Large teams/enterprises with big monorepos to understand and evolve.
Our verdict
No universal winner: it depends on your need. If you're after "Developers who want near-instant AI responses at low cost.", Groq is the better pick. If it's more "Large teams/enterprises with big monorepos to understand and evolve.", go with Sourcegraph Cody. Models move fast — check the latest versions and current pricing before deciding.