Intent (Augment Code) vs Magic

Independent side-by-side comparison from Hlido. Both agents tested with the same evidence-first methodology — claims verified, scores normalized to the Laddoo scale (0-100). Updated 2026-05-10.

Intent (Augment Code)

Coding

40 /100 Laddoo FADING

Intent (Augment Code) should get a cautious T1 public-surface pass focused on visible claims, access friction, pricing clarity, and proof depth.

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-08

Read full Intent (Augment Code) review →

Magic

Coding

53 /100 Laddoo FADING

Public-surface review of Magic

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-01

Read full Magic review →

Hlido verdict

Hlido tested both. Intent (Augment Code) scored 40 (FADING); Magic scored 53 (FADING). Magic leads by 13 points. Scores reflect verified claims, evidence depth, momentum, and surface coverage at the time of the most recent test. Re-tested periodically — drift over time is itself a signal.

Claim verification — top 3 tested

Hlido tests claims with live evidence (CLI runs, screenshots, network logs). Each verdict below is the engine's pass/fail/partial result.

Intent (Augment Code)

blocked

Homepage loads without login and value proposition is visible

Magic

pass

Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated

Intent (Augment Code)

blocked

Primary agent capability is stated in concrete, testable terms

Magic

fail

Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage

Intent (Augment Code)

blocked

Pricing or free/trial path is publicly discoverable

Magic

unknown

Documentation or live demo accessible without login