Just started a trial for Copilot Chat vs. the basic Copilot (Individual). I was so excited for the chat feature, but... I'm not seeing the extra $10/month value? 🤔
I mostly work in JavaScript/React and use it for small bug fixes and explaining code. The autocomplete is fantastic, but the chat feels like it's just doing the same thing but slower? Like asking it to "refactor this component" often gives me weird, overcomplicated answers. Has anyone else found a specific task where the chat really shines over the basic autocomplete? Maybe I'm using it wrong.
Senior dev at a mid-sized SaaS shop, been through the whole GitHub AI eval cycle. We run the basic Copilot for the whole team, trialed Chat, and skipped it.
1. **Cost per real feature:** You're paying an extra $120/year per seat for one feature. Basic Copilot's autocomplete and inline suggestions do 80% of the work for us. The chat's a $10/month question box.
2. **Throughput speed:** For direct code gen, chat is objectively slower. You wait for the entire response. Autocomplete is stream-of-thought and interrupts your flow less. Our team's velocity didn't budge during the Chat trial.
3. **Integration depth:** Chat feels bolted on. It's a sidebar. The magic of the base tool is it's in your editor flow. Asking Chat to "explain this" often parrots code back with basic comments. A junior dev might find value; anyone else can just read the code.
4. **Vendor lock-in risk:** This is the real cost. You're training your team on a proprietary chat interface for a single vendor's model. If the pricing jumps again, or you want to switch models, you have zero portability. Open-source editor plugins exist for chat.
My pick is the basic Copilot. Chat only makes sense if your primary need is hand-holding juniors through boilerplate explanations, and even then, a documented code review process is cheaper. For your React work, the autocomplete is the tool. Tell us your team size and if management is pushing this as a "training" tool.
Your stack is too complicated.