Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon Q vs GitHub CoPilot comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon Q
Ranking in AI Code Assistants
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
3.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
GitHub CoPilot
Ranking in AI Code Assistants
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Rapid Application Development Software (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the AI Code Assistants category, the mindshare of Amazon Q is 7.1%. The mindshare of GitHub CoPilot is 6.6%, up from 6.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
AI Code Assistants Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Amazon Q7.1%
GitHub CoPilot6.6%
Other86.3%
AI Code Assistants
 

Featured Reviews

Jayesh Patil - PeerSpot reviewer
Connectors and guardrails facilitate question-answer setups effectively
There isn't such an issue we have faced with Amazon Q regarding speed increasing. Syncing and indexing takes a lot of time, and they need to improve upon that. Remaining everything is good for us, and that is also acceptable as we can set it as a nightly job. Once it's done, it takes around one hour max for any number of documents. We were trying to address specific issues and challenges by implementing Amazon Q in our environment because currently, they don't provide any APIs directly. We find it difficult to integrate with our product. The second challenge is while connecting Jira, we need the ACLs to maintain our security, but it doesn't allow us to connect to Jira if our ACLs are on. We need to turn them off to connect to it. Even though we connected with the support team of AWS, they were not able to resolve our issue, so we were disappointed at that moment. As a part of improvement, we don't see any improvement areas for Amazon Q at present. We first need to test that we can integrate it with our product. We need the APIs before we can suggest improvements.
TarunRevalla - PeerSpot reviewer
Saves time with context-aware code suggestions and seamless integration
In terms of improvements for Copilot, I haven't considered much since it offers many useful interactions. It integrates well with GitHub repositories, tracks changes on PRs, and provides valuable suggestions where applicable. There is excellent support across various code editors like JetBrains, VS Code, and NeoGen. I also run many automations within GitHub. When an NPR is raised, it automatically provides suggestions, which is part of the enterprise edition without limitations. While I don't see immediate room for improvement, one suggestion is for Copilot to provide specific suggestions for certain lines of code instead of rewriting entire sections. If the tool could focus on specific lines where changes are suggested, it would save time and reduce server load.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The best feature of Amazon Q is the voice chat, where it talks back to you in normal language and you can query it."
"The best feature Amazon Q offers is the code security scan, which actually depicts the threat assessment of the code or whether a particular code snippet can be utilized by attackers to find loopholes."
"The support team from Amazon provides comfort because previously we used to think and implement, which took considerable time, and now we can complete our projects and requirements in three months or two months."
"The explanation and documentation capabilities are excellent."
"The best feature of Amazon Q is that it has knowledge of my entire code base, entire repository, and its flows."
"Once the configuration is complete, users can manage all Kubernetes clusters using Amazon Q prompt, and when checking pods in the Kubernetes cluster, there is no need to use commands as users can simply write a prompt like 'Please show me the Kubernetes pods and namespace and all,' and Amazon Q automatically provides all the required details."
"Amazon Q significantly reduced the time we spent on testing; it served as a great tool where we could ask questions, get answers, and complete testing efficiently."
"The insight capability is specifically the best one because if searching for data, it will take some amount of time and can be really complex manually; with Amazon Q, it was able to give me quick insights in a couple of seconds with summarized results, which is something really amazing."
"Copilot is highly recommended for everyone."
"When I write code, I feel like I have someone sitting with me to help me. Wherever I'm stuck, I just ask a question, and it provides guidance that I can use."
"GitHub CoPilot has good stability and performance."
"The product is easy to integrate."
"GitHub Copilot can improve productivity by up to 40%, especially for experienced developers. Senior developers often spend more time reviewing code, which can make the code review process a bit longer."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"The document generation features are valuable."
"The initial setup of the product is easy."
 

Cons

"If I start with a prompt in one tab and then try to continue in another, it does not retain that context."
"If I start with a prompt in one tab and then try to continue in another, it does not retain that context."
"While using Amazon Q, I faced some challenges, such as navigating the interface initially."
"Even though we connected with the support team of AWS, they were not able to resolve our issue, so we were disappointed at that moment."
"Sometimes feedback is needed immediately. It takes a bit of time because there is a workload."
"One most important improvement would be having deeper domain-specific intelligence for Amazon Q."
"I discovered that the application logs me out automatically after some time, which becomes problematic as I then lose access to my chat history."
"The model is not able to give answers properly with the traffic it is facing, so it needs to be scaled more."
"The only suggestion is to enhance Copilot's ability to assist developers with infrastructure as code tasks. Like, while using CI/CD pipeline, when I use YAML files, so it could just support the port number."
"They could simplify the API integrations and allow us to automate certain tasks using our own server without just logging into the web page."
"One drawback is that the solution sometimes suggests unwanted code, especially if I accidentally press the tab. This doesn't happen often. Sometimes it seems to understand my code, but other times it doesn't. This inconsistency is confusing."
"The technology offered by the product in the retail industry and banking processes has certain shortcomings, making them areas that can be improved."
"The problem arises when a bot is not well-designed, which frustrates customers."
"It cannot be fully depended on to build every component and run a large enterprise application without significant human intervention."
"GitHub CoPilot should be integrated with different IDEs beyond VS Code, as it is currently only supported by VS Code."
"Sometimes, if it is a bigger piece of code, it breaks in between."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We have a demo license. Once we understand what we'll do, we'll start with a paid license."
"The pricing for GitHub Copilot is around ten dollars per month."
"A personal license is priced at ten dollars per month, while a professional or enterprise license costs nineteen dollars per user, and these rates are consistent for all users."
"We have a license but need another one for the GitHub CoPilot tool."
"GitHub CoPilot's pricing is reasonable. Our licensing costs were initially monthly, but then we switched to yearly payments. I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"GitHub Copilot is a paid service, costing approximately $6 per month. There might be a free trial available."
"There is a need to pay around 10 USD to be able to use the solution."
"Each user needs their license, whether it's a big team or a small team."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which AI Code Assistants solutions are best for your needs.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Performing Arts
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Amazon Q?
While using Amazon Q, I faced some challenges, such as navigating the interface initially.
What is your primary use case for Amazon Q?
I have completed a project where the company required testing R&D on Kubernetes. I tested it locally by installing MiniKube, Kubernetes, and all the containers. I configured the Kubernetes MCB ...
What advice do you have for others considering Amazon Q?
I find Amazon Q easy to use, and I believe anyone can use it without needing extensive technical knowledge. I would definitely recommend Amazon Q to other people; it's a great tool. I find it quite...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitHub CoPilot?
I am not fully aware of the pricing details as my company manages it, but I recall it was not inexpensive.
What needs improvement with GitHub CoPilot?
GitHub CoPilot should be integrated with different IDEs beyond VS Code, as it is currently only supported by VS Code.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Q vs. GitHub CoPilot and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.