claude code vs windsurf

by Ray Svitla

this isn’t really a comparison between two products. it’s a comparison between two theories of how AI should fit into your development workflow.

windsurf says: AI should live inside your editor, see what you see, suggest as you type.

claude code says: AI should be a separate agent that you talk to, and it figures out the rest.

both are right. neither is complete. let me explain.

windsurf: the IDE bet

windsurf (formerly codeium) is a full IDE — a VS Code fork with AI baked into every surface. cascade, their agent system, runs in a panel beside your code. it sees your open files, understands your cursor position, and can make changes across your project.

the key feature: windsurf tab. it predicts your next edit based on what you’re doing. not just autocomplete — it watches you refactor a function and pre-fills the same pattern in the next one. it’s surprisingly good at reading your intent from your behavior.

windsurf also handles terminal commands, file creation, and multi-file edits. cascade can run in “write” or “chat” mode, and the flow between them is smooth.

pricing shifted recently — free for individuals (with limits), enterprise plans for teams. they use a credits system where different models burn credits at different rates.

claude code: the terminal bet

claude code is a CLI tool. no GUI. no syntax highlighting panel. no file tree. you open your terminal, type claude, and start talking.

it compensates for the lack of visual chrome with raw capability. it reads files, runs commands, searches your codebase, edits code, runs tests, reads the output, and iterates. it does this autonomously — you describe the goal, it figures out the steps.

no inline suggestions. no cursor-aware predictions. just a conversation with an agent that has access to your entire development environment.

the visual gap

here’s what windsurf gives you that claude code never will: visual feedback while you code. seeing suggestions inline. watching the AI edit in real-time in your editor. having a file tree, syntax highlighting, and AI in the same window.

this matters more than terminal purists want to admit. most developers spend their days in an IDE. switching to a terminal for AI means context-switching, and context-switching has cognitive cost.

but here’s what claude code gives you that windsurf can’t: true autonomy. when claude code runs a test, sees it fail, reads the error, edits the code, runs the test again — that loop happens without you touching anything. windsurf’s cascade can do some of this, but it’s inherently constrained by the IDE paradigm. it wants to show you things and wait for approval at each step.

where windsurf wins

→ learning curve. if you use VS Code, you already know windsurf. zero friction. → inline suggestions. windsurf tab is genuinely useful for routine code. → visual context. seeing AI edits in your actual editor reduces cognitive load. → model variety. cascade supports multiple models including claude, GPT-4o, and others. → price for light use. free tier is generous for individuals.

where claude code wins

→ agentic depth. multi-step autonomous tasks without hand-holding. → terminal workflows. if you live in tmux/neovim, it fits your existing setup. → MCP integration. extensible through model context protocol — databases, APIs, custom tools. → CLAUDE.md. per-project instructions that fundamentally change agent behavior. → plan mode. think before acting, architecture before implementation. → scripting. claude code can be called from scripts, CI/CD, other tools.

the uncomfortable truth about IDEs

AI-native IDEs like windsurf solve a real problem: making AI accessible without changing your workflow. but they also create a specific kind of dependency.

when your AI is integrated into your editor, the AI becomes a feature of that editor. switch editors? lose the AI. windsurf’s best features — tab predictions, cascade’s file awareness — are tightly coupled to their VS Code fork.

claude code’s terminal approach is more portable. your terminal doesn’t change. your shell doesn’t change. the agent is a tool you invoke, not an environment you inhabit. this matters if you care about not being locked into one vendor’s entire development environment.

the workflow question

the real question isn’t which tool is better. it’s how you work.

windsurf workflow: open editor → code normally → get AI suggestions inline → ask cascade for bigger changes → stay in the flow of writing code.

claude code workflow: think about the task → describe it to the agent → let it execute → review the results → iterate in conversation.

the first is augmented coding. the second is delegated coding. neither is wrong, but they feel very different.

if you find yourself writing most of the code and wanting AI to smooth the edges, windsurf matches that style. if you find yourself describing what you want and reviewing what you get, claude code matches that style.

can you use both

yes, and you probably should experiment. run windsurf as your editor for the visual comfort and inline suggestions. keep a claude code terminal open for complex tasks that need autonomous execution.

the tools aren’t really competing. they’re competing for different parts of your workflow. the inline prediction game and the autonomous agent game are different games.

pick based on how you actually work, not how you think you should work.

→ claude code vs aider — terminal vs terminal comparison → CLAUDE.md guide — make claude code work for your repo → agent-first design — structure repos for any AI tool

Ray Svitla stay evolving