Best GitHub Copilot Alternatives 2026

GitHub Copilot changed how developers write code, but it’s not the only option anymore—and it’s not always the best one. Pricing jumps, inconsistent suggestions in certain languages, and the locked-in GitHub ecosystem push plenty of developers to look elsewhere. The AI coding assistant space has matured fast, and several alternatives now beat Copilot in specific workflows.

Why Look for GitHub Copilot Alternatives?

The pricing adds up quickly for teams. Copilot Business costs $19/user/month, and Enterprise runs $39/user/month. For a 50-person engineering team, that’s $11,400 to $23,400 annually. Some alternatives offer comparable features at lower per-seat costs, and others have genuinely useful free tiers that Copilot’s limited free plan can’t match.

GitHub lock-in is real. Copilot works best when your repositories live on GitHub, your CI/CD runs through GitHub Actions, and your team uses VS Code. If you’re on GitLab, Bitbucket, or prefer JetBrains IDEs, the experience degrades. Copilot’s JetBrains plugin has historically lagged behind the VS Code version in feature parity.

Context awareness has limits. Copilot’s suggestions are often based on the current file and a few neighboring tabs. For large codebases—especially monorepos with hundreds of services—it frequently generates code that doesn’t match your team’s patterns, imports the wrong internal libraries, or suggests deprecated API calls. Newer tools handle project-wide context significantly better.

Privacy concerns haven’t gone away. Despite Microsoft’s assurances, some organizations—especially in finance, healthcare, and government—can’t send proprietary code to external servers. Copilot’s enterprise tier addresses some of this, but alternatives like Tabnine offer true on-premise deployment that satisfies even the strictest compliance teams.

Suggestion quality varies by language. Copilot excels at Python, JavaScript, and TypeScript. But developers working in Rust, Go, or less common languages often report that suggestions are less accurate or helpful. Some competitors have closed this gap or even surpassed Copilot in specific language ecosystems.

Cursor

Best for: Developers who want AI deeply integrated into their entire editor experience

Cursor isn’t a plugin—it’s a complete code editor built from the ground up with AI at its core. It’s a fork of VS Code, so the transition is smooth (your extensions, keybindings, and themes carry over), but the AI capabilities go far beyond what any VS Code extension can offer.

The killer feature is multi-file editing with full project context. When you ask Cursor to refactor a function, it understands the call sites across your codebase and can update them simultaneously. Copilot treats each file mostly in isolation. Cursor’s “Composer” feature lets you describe a change in natural language, and it generates a diff spanning multiple files that you can review and apply. This is genuinely useful for tasks like “add error handling to all API endpoints” or “migrate these database queries to the new ORM syntax.”

Cursor’s chat understands your entire repository. You can ask questions like “where is the authentication middleware defined and what does it check?” and get accurate answers with file references. Copilot’s chat has improved, but it still struggles with project-wide queries in large codebases.

The honest downside: you’re leaving VS Code. Even though Cursor is based on VS Code, it’s a separate application. Extension updates sometimes lag behind, and some proprietary VS Code features (like Live Share) don’t work. For teams with strict IDE standardization policies, this can be a non-starter. Pricing starts free with limited requests, $20/month for Pro (which most individual developers need), and $40/user/month for Business.

See our GitHub Copilot vs Cursor comparison

Read our full Cursor review

Codeium (Windsurf)

Best for: Individual developers and small teams wanting a generous free tier

Codeium rebranded its editor experience to Windsurf, but the core value proposition remains: excellent AI code completion that won’t empty your wallet. The free tier includes unlimited autocomplete suggestions and a reasonable number of chat interactions. Compare that to Copilot’s free plan, which caps usage and requires a GitHub account.

The autocomplete quality genuinely rivals Copilot. In blind tests, many developers can’t tell the difference between Codeium and Copilot suggestions for common patterns in popular languages. Where Codeium has pushed ahead is with “Flows”—an agentic feature where the AI handles multi-step tasks like setting up a test suite, creating boilerplate for a new API endpoint, or refactoring across files. It’s not as polished as Cursor’s implementation, but it works well for straightforward tasks.

Language support covers over 70 languages, and IDE support is broad: VS Code, JetBrains, Neovim, Emacs, and even Jupyter notebooks. If you use multiple editors across different projects, Codeium’s consistent experience is a real advantage over Copilot, which is noticeably weaker outside VS Code.

The limitation is enterprise readiness. Codeium’s team and admin features aren’t as mature as Copilot Business or Enterprise. If you need SSO, audit logs, IP indemnity, and code attribution controls, Copilot’s enterprise offering is more complete. Pro costs $15/month—cheaper than Copilot—and enterprise pricing is custom.

See our GitHub Copilot vs Windsurf comparison

Read our full Windsurf review

Amazon Q Developer

Best for: Teams building on AWS infrastructure

If your stack runs on AWS, Amazon Q Developer is almost unfairly good. It doesn’t just complete code—it understands AWS services, generates CloudFormation templates, writes IAM policies, and suggests architecture patterns specific to Amazon’s ecosystem. Try asking Copilot to write an IAM policy for a Lambda function that reads from DynamoDB and writes to S3. It’ll produce something generic. Amazon Q generates policies scoped to your actual resources.

The code transformation feature is genuinely useful for migration work. It can upgrade Java 8 applications to Java 17, update .NET Framework code to .NET Core, and handle the tedious dependency changes that come with these migrations. Amazon claims this saves hundreds of developer hours on large migration projects, and from what I’ve seen, that’s not an exaggeration for substantial codebases.

Security scanning is built in, not bolted on. Q Developer flags vulnerabilities as you write code—not after you’ve committed it—and suggests fixes that are usually correct. Copilot has added some security features, but they’re not as tightly integrated.

The downside is obvious: Q Developer is mediocre outside AWS contexts. If you’re on GCP, Azure, or bare metal, the AWS-specific intelligence doesn’t help you. General code completion quality is solid but slightly behind Copilot and Cursor for non-cloud code. The free tier is generous for individual use, and Pro at $19/user/month is competitive with Copilot Business.

See our GitHub Copilot vs Amazon Q Developer comparison

Read our full Amazon Q Developer review

Tabnine

Best for: Enterprises with strict code privacy and on-premise requirements

Tabnine has carved out a unique position: it’s the AI coding assistant for organizations that can’t—or won’t—send code to someone else’s servers. The entire system can run on your own infrastructure. Your code never leaves your network. For companies in regulated industries, this isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s the only option.

Beyond privacy, Tabnine’s personalization is its strongest card. It trains on your private codebase, learning your team’s naming conventions, architectural patterns, and preferred libraries. After a few weeks of indexing, the suggestions start feeling like they were written by a senior developer on your team, not a generic model. Copilot’s enterprise tier offers some organization-level tuning, but Tabnine’s been doing this longer and does it better.

IDE support is the broadest in the market—over 30 editors including VS Code, JetBrains, Eclipse, Sublime Text, and even Vim. If you have a team where developers use different editors (and they always do), Tabnine works everywhere without quality differences.

The honest limitation: raw suggestion quality on general coding tasks isn’t as strong as Copilot or Cursor. If you’re writing greenfield code without much existing codebase context, Tabnine’s suggestions are less impressive. It shines when there’s a large existing codebase to learn from. Free tier handles basic completions; Pro is $12/user/month (the cheapest paid option on this list); Enterprise pricing is custom but typically $30-40/user/month with on-premise deployment.

See our GitHub Copilot vs Tabnine comparison

Read our full Tabnine review

Sourcegraph Cody

Best for: Developers working across large, complex codebases

Cody’s superpower is understanding your entire codebase, not just the file you’re editing. Sourcegraph has spent years building code intelligence and search technology, and Cody inherits all of that. It can answer questions about a 10-million-line monorepo accurately because it actually indexes and understands the relationships between files, functions, and services.

The model flexibility is a practical advantage. You can switch between Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and other models depending on the task. Some models are better at explaining existing code; others are stronger at generating new code. Having the choice means you’re not stuck when one model struggles with a particular language or pattern. Copilot ties you to whatever model GitHub has selected for you.

Context retrieval is where Cody truly differentiates. When you ask it to help write a new function, it automatically pulls in relevant code from across your repository—type definitions, similar implementations, API contracts, test patterns. The suggestions are architecturally consistent because they’re informed by actual context, not just the current file. For microservice architectures where understanding cross-service contracts matters, this is a meaningful productivity boost.

The limitation is setup complexity. To get the full benefit, you need Sourcegraph’s code intelligence platform running, which means indexing your repositories and maintaining that infrastructure. For a solo developer with a few small projects, this is overkill. The free individual plan works well for personal projects; Pro at $9/month is the cheapest paid tier among all alternatives; Enterprise at $19/user/month requires the Sourcegraph platform.

See our GitHub Copilot vs Sourcegraph Cody comparison

Read our full Sourcegraph Cody review

JetBrains AI Assistant

Best for: Teams already committed to JetBrains IDEs

If your entire team uses IntelliJ IDEA, PyCharm, WebStorm, or any other JetBrains IDE, this is the most friction-free AI coding assistant you can adopt. There’s no plugin to install or configure—it’s built directly into the IDE. It understands JetBrains-specific features like inspections, intentions, and refactoring actions, and it can trigger them as part of its suggestions.

The integration depth matters more than it sounds. When JetBrains AI suggests a refactoring, it uses the same engine that powers JetBrains’ legendary refactoring tools. It won’t just text-replace a variable name—it’ll properly rename it across the project, update imports, and adjust documentation. Copilot’s refactoring suggestions are text-based and frequently miss call sites or break imports.

AI-powered commit messages are a small feature that saves real time. It analyzes your diff and generates commit messages that actually describe what changed and why, following your project’s commit message conventions if you’ve established them. Code explanations are also strong—you can highlight any block of code and get a clear explanation of what it does, which is invaluable for onboarding or working in unfamiliar parts of a codebase.

The obvious limitation: it only works in JetBrains products. If even one team member prefers VS Code or Neovim, they’re out of luck. And if you’re primarily a VS Code shop, there’s no reason to consider this. Pricing is $10/month standalone, or it’s included with the JetBrains All Products Pack at $289/year (which many developers already have).

See our GitHub Copilot vs JetBrains AI Assistant comparison

Read our full JetBrains AI Assistant review

Replit AI

Best for: Rapid prototyping and developers who want coding plus deployment in one place

Replit takes a different approach: instead of adding AI to your existing workflow, it provides the entire workflow—editor, AI, hosting, deployment, database—in one browser-based platform. For prototyping, hackathons, and building small-to-medium applications quickly, nothing else comes close to the speed of going from idea to deployed app.

The Agent mode is where Replit gets interesting. Describe what you want in plain English—“build a REST API with user authentication, a PostgreSQL database, and a React frontend”—and it generates the entire application scaffold, installs dependencies, and makes it runnable. It’s not just code generation; it sets up the file structure, configuration, and even deployment settings. For getting a working prototype in front of someone in an hour instead of a day, it’s remarkably effective.

Collaboration is built in. Multiple developers can work in the same workspace simultaneously, and the AI assists everyone with shared context. For pair programming or teaching scenarios, this is more natural than trying to share a Copilot session through VS Code Live Share.

The limitation is clear: Replit isn’t for serious production development. You don’t have the same level of control over your environment, debugging tools are limited compared to desktop IDEs, and performance on large projects suffers. If you’re building enterprise software, this isn’t your tool. The free tier lets you experiment; Core at $20/month gives you enough compute and AI for real projects; Teams at $40/user/month adds collaboration features.

See our GitHub Copilot vs Replit AI comparison

Read our full Replit AI review

Quick Comparison Table

Tool	Best For	Starting Price	Free Plan
Cursor	AI-native full editor experience	$20/month	Yes (limited)
Codeium (Windsurf)	Budget-friendly AI completions	$15/month	Yes (generous)
Amazon Q Developer	AWS-focused development	$19/user/month	Yes
Tabnine	On-premise / code privacy	$12/user/month	Yes (basic)
Sourcegraph Cody	Large codebase navigation	$9/month	Yes
JetBrains AI Assistant	JetBrains IDE users	$10/month	No
Replit AI	Prototyping and full-stack in browser	$20/month	Yes

How to Choose

If your main frustration with Copilot is suggestion quality and context awareness, go with Cursor. It’s the closest direct upgrade—same VS Code foundation, significantly better multi-file understanding.

If budget is the primary concern, start with Codeium/Windsurf or Sourcegraph Cody. Both have strong free tiers that genuinely work for daily use, and their paid plans undercut Copilot.

If you’re building on AWS and want AI that understands your cloud infrastructure, Amazon Q Developer is the obvious pick. Nothing else matches its AWS-specific intelligence.

If code privacy is non-negotiable—you’re in a regulated industry or your legal team won’t approve cloud-based code analysis—Tabnine is your only real option for fully on-premise AI code completion.

If your team standardized on JetBrains IDEs and you want the tightest possible integration, JetBrains AI Assistant avoids the plugin tax and works the way JetBrains developers expect.

If you’re building prototypes, MVPs, or learning projects and want everything in one place, Replit AI eliminates environment setup entirely and gets you to a working app faster than any other option.

Switching Tips

Migrating from Copilot is usually painless because most alternatives install as IDE extensions alongside (or instead of) Copilot. You can run two AI assistants simultaneously in most editors to compare quality before fully committing. I’d recommend a two-week overlap period.

Disable Copilot’s autocomplete before enabling another tool’s. Running two autocomplete engines at once creates conflicting suggestions and slows down your editor. Keep Copilot’s chat active while testing the new tool’s completions, then switch the chat over once you’re comfortable.

Export your Copilot usage data if your organization tracks it. GitHub provides analytics on suggestion acceptance rates and languages used. This data helps you evaluate whether the new tool is actually performing better or just feeling different.

Give any new tool at least two weeks before judging it. AI coding assistants learn your patterns (especially Tabnine), and initial suggestions won’t reflect the tool’s full capability. The first few days will always feel slower because you’re adjusting to different suggestion timing and formatting.

Watch out for keybinding conflicts. Every AI assistant wants to own Tab, Escape, and certain Ctrl/Cmd shortcuts. Check the keybinding settings on day one and resolve conflicts explicitly rather than discovering them mid-flow during a coding session.

For team migrations, roll out in stages. Start with one team or project, collect feedback for a month, then expand. Switching an entire engineering organization’s AI tooling at once is a recipe for productivity dips and complaint tickets.

---

Disclosure: Some links on this page are affiliate links. We may earn a commission if you make a purchase, at no extra cost to you. This helps us keep the site running and produce quality content.