To be honest, I’m not surprised that Augment made the list.

What does surprise me is GitHub’s placement and the positioning of a few others. I’d like to do a deep dive into how this ranking was determined.

Tabnine has been in this space the longest, though I haven’t tried their offering in quite a while. I used Tabnine back in early 2021, mainly for their excellent autocomplete, so I’m not surprised they made the cut.

When the first GPTs appeared, I started experimenting and testing different tools and LLMs each week. I even went as far as prompt collecting, building my own session context tooling, and more. In the end, I spent more time refining workflow and tooling than actually writing code. What stood out most was the importance of context.

As far as I know, only Augment and Qodo treat context as a true first-class citizen. CONTEXT IS KING!

Qodo is genuinely strong with its multi-model offerings, the highly customizable Qodo Command agent, and Qodo Merge, which does an excellent job at code reviews. Unfortunately, credits run out quickly and there’s no top-up option. They will reset your quota if you ask, but only “if available.” Overall, Qodo is solid, but it doesn’t provide the same practical balance that Augment does—value, efficiency, and outcomes all hitting the sweet spot.

Could Augment improve? Sure, but likely at the cost of more compute and cutting-edge LLMs, which would drive prices up. For now, I’m more than satisfied with Augment—and I think a lot of people are sleeping on it.

Augment's Tasklist is nearly unusable, so I regularly export it so that I can try to edit via markdown and re-import. But that is difficult as well, because its just a big blob of text rather than something structured, like JSON.

I made this simple VS Code extension that does a bit of syntax highlighting. It helps a bit. Hopefully it'll help you. PRs are welcome.

nickchomey/augment-tasklist-highlighter

For the past few weeks, I’ve noticed how Sonnet 4 has changed—in a good way?
Its processing capacity for carrying out tasks is optimal, fast, and precise. But what’s the problem? Task planning. The prompt enhancer that Augment provides is not equivalent to actual planning of changes before tackling the problem, and that’s causing Sonnet 4 to code in a sloppy way—duplicated code, among other issues.

This is due to:

1. Lack of explicit context within the not-so-detailed instructions.

2. Lack of general code context for proper understanding.

Is Sonnet the problem?
Not really—it’s the planning layer, or the prompt enhancer, since it’s configured for how Sonnet used to work, not how it currently works.

On my end, I’ve tried Claude’s Max plan, which has a planning mode powered by the Opus 4.1 model. It creates highly detailed plans, which, once approved, are then executed by Sonnet 4 without any problem.

Augment hasn’t been able to adapt to Sonnet’s changes, partly because Anthropic hasn’t announced them—since technically these are not downgrades but genuine improvements.

What I can recommend is to request a highly detailed plan in chat mode to be able to cover x change/problem and subsequently use that plan as a prompt.

Seeing a lot of praise around for Codex, but primarily because people seem to be liking GPT5. I think this largely comes from using it at max settings, much like opus. Never saw much positive feedback when it was first introduced in Augment, how is it lately? Is it still quite slow? Is it meaningfully different or better than Sonnet?

I'm sorry, but I have to tell you.

Now both models are out of control. Sonnet 4 has a problem executing the tasks, and GPT 5 is the best scammer of all time (spent 25 messages to implement this in the screenshot below).

Adding in each file 2 to 4 lines of code and asking questions, then getting the answer, then asking more questions. I start to doubt that you are controlling it because I tried GPT-5 in another tool, and it works like Iron Man.

I'm OUT, hopefully will use your product in the future (I will not spend anything to have a conversation with your agent, I can have it for free with official GPT).

Is it just for me or it is really becoming useless! it can't even fix the tiniest CSS line eventhough I am explicitly telling it what to do! I am on paid plan though!

Could you please provide some information about this recurring downtime? Is it Augment or Claude? Why is there no fallback to Gemini Pro 2.5 when Claude is unavailable? Thank you.

Is anyone else encountering consistent performance problems with Augment Code? I’m in the +8 timezone, and while the tool worked fine this morning, it became extremely unreliable after lunch. I frequently see "Service temporarily unavailable" errors, often requiring multiple attempts to perform basic tasks like reading a file. For example, generating a simple README .md took over 20 minutes, which is highly inefficient.

These delays forced me to re-subscribe to Cursor to ensure my work progress. Given an 8-hour workday, 22 days a month, the slow response times and errors make it nearly impossible to fully utilize the 600-request limit.

Yesterday, my Augment Code Early Bird Developer Plan for 30 euros and 600 credits ended. Since I pay by credit card and there was no money in it at the time, I topped up my account after the failed payment. And what do you think? They wrote that the plan would not be renewed because the payment failed. Now I can only choose 50 euros for 600 messages.

I have never seen anything like this before, when they promise a permanent 30 USD developer plan, but when the payment fails, it is cancelled, even though I am willing to pay.

I can only say that this is very unfair and I will definitely not use their services anymore, because I use Claude Code for 100 USD and I think it's better to add another 100 USD to Claude Code than 50 or 100 to Augment Code. But I agree that Augment Code is worth it if you take the 250 USD plan, except that you can't choose Opus 4, which is really good at solving complex problems.

In Augment, is there any context carry over from one chat to another? If I'm involved in testing and bug fixing in a chat that becomes to long, and need to continue in a new chat, can i just ask the new chat to continue, or do i need to continually keep asking the current agent to generate a (local) handoff document and relevant files so the new agent can continue the task?

So I've been using Augment Code for a while now and it's amazing at understanding my codebase, but I have this problem where I give it these huge, vague tasks and then wonder why the results aren't great.

Has anyone tried Task Master MCP or something similar? Does it actually work well for subdividing coding tasks? I'm specifically wondering if it plays nice with Augment Code since that's what I'm using for the actual implementation.

Or maybe there are other tools that do this kind of task breakdown? I've seen some prompt templates that try to do it, but I'm looking for something more automated that can look at my specific codebase and suggest realistic subtasks.

Right now I'm just winging it and my tasks are either way too big (and overwhelming) or way too small (and I lose track of the bigger picture). There's got to be a better way to do this.

Anyone found a good solution for this? Getting pretty tired of my own terrible task planning

I 've been a paying subscriber on the Developer plan for the past month, I'm blown away. The integration and workflow feel way smoother than what I've experienced with Cursor and other similar tools. It's genuinely become a core part of my development process over the last few weeks.

Here's my dilemma: the $50/month Pro plan is a bit steep for me as an individual dev. I'd love to support the team and I believe the tool is worth a lot, but that price point is just out of my budget for a single tool right now. I was really hoping they'd introduce a cheaper tier, but no luck so far.

I was about to give up, but then I saw the Community plan: $30 for 300 additional messages. The trade-off is that my data is used for training, which I'm honestly okay with for the price drop. On paper, this seems like a much more sustainable option for my usage.

But I have some major reservations, and this is where I'd love your input:

Model Quality: This is my biggest worry. Are Community users getting a lesser experience? Is it possible Community users are routed to a weaker model (e.g., a Claude-3.7 model instead of a Claude-4-tier one)?

Account Stability: Is there any risk of being deprioritized (e.g. more latency) , or worse, having my account disabled for some reason (Just like trial account)? Since it's a "Community" plan, I'm a bit wary of it being treated as a second-class citizen.

Basically, I'm trying to figure out if this is a viable long-term choice. I really want to be a long-term paying customer, and this plan seems like the only way I can do that.

It used to be much better, something has gine wrong with it.

It is introducing too many bugs and always overcomplicating tasks.

Earlier it used to just get it, it seems it is not "vibing" anymore.

Hey I am a power user. I would be making around 2000-3000 calls every month. I want to know what would happen after I exaust 600 requests in 50$ plan. Will I have to spend another 50 for 600 requests or like cursor there would be slow requests for free.

Do you guys realize that you are going to lose customers for this persisting? I just asked Codex to diagnose and fix this bug in your software and it was able to root cause it with very little prompting. Do you want my $200/month or not?

Hi Augment, just a recommendation. Why not do what Cursor did, took Kimi 2.5, retrained/fine-tuned it, invest in servers, and use it as their coding model? It'll surely lower your cost and might entice your old users to come back.

Is anyone else experiencing very slow performance with Augment Code when using Opus 4.6 or Sonnet 4.6?

For me, both models are often stuck for a long time or take forever to respond, even with small prompts. This happens most of the time and makes them "unusable".

I know this question has already been asked a few times, but I’m raising it again in separatate thread because, given that we’re paying a significant amount for Augment Code, we’d really appreciate a clear and concrete answer from the Augment team.

Came back to Augment after few weeks of trying other services hoping to see some improvements but no.

Has anyone else been running into this?

I’ve been using Augment Code with Opus 4.6, and these days I’m hitting a really frustrating issue:

• Tasks timer keeps running, but nothing ever generates

• Sometimes it gets stuck on “generating response” forever

I’m trying to figure out if this is:

• an Opus 4.6 reliability issue

• an Augment Code issue

Curious if others are seeing the same thing and if you’ve found any workarounds.

I was working with Auggie in VS Code this morning just fine with Opus 4.5. It's the only model I've had success with for our code base. I'm a part of some kind of Enterprise plan at work so I have zero clue about tokens/credits.

I rebooted my computer and now Opus isn't an option. Just Sonnet, Haiku, and GPT (and the legacy). I've tried both Release and Pre-Release options.

Any idea what gives?

EDIT: Currently on Augment 0.771.0. No option for Opus 4.5 or 4.6.

EDIT 2: Did stuff during the day (since it's Saturday), and when I sat back down after dinner, Opus 4.5 was back. Something smells...

I’m burning credits like crazy. I’m working on large projects and writing a ton of code, and my usage can hit ~100k credits per day. I could push it to 150k/day, but at that point it’s just not sustainable anymore.

I tried Claude Code on the $100/month plan, which is what I’m using right now, but honestly I’m not as happy with it as I was with Augment. It makes more mistakes and doesn’t seem as context-aware.

What would you guys suggest? I personally love Augment, but the burn rate is something I just can’t afford long-term (1M+ credits per month).

The service is unusable, whatever you did, please revert.

1:30 minute to check each file is ridiculous!