IntentDocs vs Kiro (2026)
Disclosure first: we build IntentDocs, so this comparison has a side. We've tried to earn your trust the only way that works — by marking the rows Kirowins, and saying plainly when it's the better choice.
Kiro is a spec-driven agentic IDE; IntentDocs is a spec-driven development platform where an AI interview produces a visual story map, data model, and build order that your coding agent builds from over MCP, with an audit trail of built versus planned. Choose Kiro if you want spec-driven development as a complete AWS-backed IDE — spec, code, and review in one surface. Choose IntentDocs if you're keeping Claude Code or Cursor and want the spec as a separate, visible layer they connect to over MCP, priced flat instead of by credits.
What is Kiro?
Kiro is AWS's agentic IDE built around specs. Describe a feature and it generates structured requirements, a design document, and a task list, then implements task by task, with agent hooks automating quality checks along the way. It's the most complete single-surface experience in spec-driven development — the whole loop of spec, code, and review inside one opinionated IDE.
What is IntentDocs?
IntentDocs is a spec-driven development platform: an AI interview turns your idea into a structured spec — a visual story map, data model, and build order — and your coding agent (Claude Code, Cursor, or any MCP client) builds from it over MCP, with an audit trail of what was built versus what was planned.
IntentDocs vs Kiro: feature by feature
A ✓ marks our honest call on who wins each row — including the ones we lose.
| Feature | IntentDocs | Kiro |
|---|---|---|
| Form factor | A spec layer over the editor and agent you already use | A new IDE you switch into |
| Whole loop in one surface | No — IntentDocs plans and audits; your agent builds | Yes — spec, code, and review never leave Kiro |
| Spec artifacts | Story map, data model, build order with per-story plans | Requirements, design document, task list |
| Works with Claude Code and Cursor | Yes — MCP server and CLI | No — Kiro replaces them |
| Automated quality hooks | Left to your agent's own tooling | Agent hooks built into the IDE |
| Planning surface for non-developers | Visual story map a founder or PM can read and reshape | Specs live inside an IDE non-developers don't run |
| Pricing model | Flat from £12/month | Credit tiers from $20 to $200/user/month |
| Backing and resources | Independent | AWS |
Pricing
Kiro (August 2026):
- Free: $0 — 50 credits/month, access to open-weight models and Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Pro: $20/user/mo — 1,000 credits
- Pro+: $40/user/mo — 2,000 credits
- Pro Max: $100/user/mo — 5,000 credits
- Power: $200/user/mo — 10,000 credits
- Enterprise: Custom — Centralised billing, SSO, usage analytics
Kiro meters usage in credits — a unit of work whose burn rate varies with task complexity and model choice; add-on credits cost $0.04 each.
IntentDocs: 7-day free trial, no card required. Pro is £12/month (or £120/year, equivalent to £10/month). Team is £15 per seat/month (or £144/seat/year), minimum 2 seats. Enterprise is custom. Full details on the pricing page.
Which should you choose?
Choose Kiro when…
- You want the entire loop — spec, implementation, review — inside one opinionated IDE.
- You're happy to switch editors, or you're not attached to your current agent.
- Built-in agent hooks for automated quality checks matter to you.
- AWS backing and enterprise controls are a factor in your tooling decisions.
Choose IntentDocs when…
- You're committed to Claude Code, Cursor, or another agent — IntentDocs adds a spec layer without asking you to move editing house.
- Planning needs to be visible to people who will never install an IDE: founders, PMs, clients.
- You want flat pricing rather than estimating credit burn per task.
- You want the spec to outlive any one editor — it lives independently and any MCP client can connect.
The honest verdict
Kiro is the most complete spec-driven environment you can buy, and if you want one surface for the whole loop with AWS behind it, it's a genuinely strong choice. The cost is that the workflow lives inside Kiro. IntentDocs makes the opposite bet: keep the editor and agent you've already chosen, and let the spec be the shared, visible layer that any MCP client connects to — with an audit trail of what got built.
Frequently asked questions
Is Kiro free? There's a free tier with 50 credits/month including access to Claude Sonnet 4.5. Paid plans run $20 to $200 per user/month by credit volume, with add-on credits at $0.04. IntentDocs is £12/month flat after a 7-day trial — no metering.
Does Kiro work with Claude Code or Cursor? No — Kiro is its own IDE with its own agent; adopting it means moving your editing workflow into it. IntentDocs takes the opposite approach: it's a spec layer your existing agent connects to over MCP.
Kiro vs spec-kit vs IntentDocs — quick version? Kiro if you want spec-driven development as an all-in-one IDE. spec-kit if you want free, open-source markdown specs in your repo. IntentDocs if you want an interview-built visual spec that your current agent builds from over MCP, with built-vs-planned tracking.
Can a non-developer use Kiro to plan? In practice, no — Kiro's specs live inside a developer IDE. If founders, PMs, or clients need to read and shape the plan, a visual story map in the browser (IntentDocs's approach) is the more workable surface.
Keep reading
- The Kiro alternative guide — the switching-focused version of this page.
- The best spec-driven development tools in 2026 — the full field, including tools neither of us competes with.
Facts about Kiro verified August 2026 against their published pricing and documentation. Spotted something out of date? Tell us and we'll fix it.
Ready to build what you intended?
Turn your idea into a structured spec and hand it to Claude Code or Cursor over MCP — with an audit trail of built versus planned.
Start free →7-day free trial · no card required