Cursor
Table of content
by Ray Svitla
what it is
Cursor is a VS Code fork with AI capabilities built into the editor at every level. autocomplete, chat, agent mode, code review, background agents — all integrated into the IDE rather than bolted on as extensions.
it’s the most popular AI coding IDE, and the closest competitor to Claude Code in the “AI-assisted development” space, despite being architecturally opposite. Cursor says the IDE is the right home for AI. Claude Code says the terminal is. both are wrong in interesting ways.
- site: cursor.com
- based on: VS Code (Microsoft)
- company: Anysphere (San Francisco)
pricing (february 2026)
| plan | price | what you get |
|---|---|---|
| Hobby | free | limited agent requests, limited Tab completions |
| Pro | $20/mo | extended agent limits, unlimited Tab, cloud agents, max context windows |
| Pro+ | $60/mo | 3x usage on all models (OpenAI, Claude, Gemini) |
| Ultra | $200/mo | 20x usage, priority access to new features |
| Teams | $40/user/mo | shared chats, centralized billing, SAML/SSO |
the Pro plan at $20/mo is the sweet spot for most individual developers. Pro+ is for heavy agent users. Ultra is for people who treat their AI bill like a gym membership — aspirational.
key features
Tab completions
Cursor’s signature feature. context-aware code suggestions that appear as you type. not just the next token — multi-line completions that understand your intent from the surrounding code. Tab to accept, keep typing to dismiss.
this is what Copilot does, but Cursor’s implementation is generally considered sharper on complex completions.
agent mode (Composer)
multi-file editing with autonomous execution. describe a task, Composer plans and implements across files. can run terminal commands, install dependencies, fix errors iteratively.
this is where Cursor overlaps most with Claude Code. the difference: you watch it work in a visual editor. with Claude Code, you watch text scroll in a terminal.
background agents
available on Pro+ and above. spin up tasks that run asynchronously while you keep coding. like Claude Code’s subagents, but integrated into the IDE experience.
model flexibility
use GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet, Claude Opus, Gemini Pro, o3, and others. switch between models mid-conversation. bring your own API keys for custom model access.
this is a genuine advantage over Claude Code, which only uses Claude models.
Bugbot (code review)
automated PR review. catches bugs, suggests fixes, integrates with GitHub. free tier has limited reviews; Pro is $40/user/month for unlimited.
.cursorrules
Cursor’s equivalent of CLAUDE.md. a project-level instruction file that shapes the AI’s behavior. simpler than CLAUDE.md (no nested configs, no hooks), but effective for basic project conventions.
where it shines
visual learners and explorers. if you think in terms of file trees, inline diffs, and visual code navigation, Cursor puts AI where your eyes already are.
autocomplete-heavy workflows. if you write a lot of code manually and want AI to accelerate the typing, Cursor’s Tab completions are the best in class.
multi-model experimentation. switching between Claude, GPT-4o, and Gemini on different tasks is trivially easy. helpful when different models excel at different things.
VS Code migration. if your entire workflow lives in VS Code — extensions, keybindings, settings — Cursor is a near-frictionless upgrade.
where it’s limited
terminal workflows. if you live in tmux, SSH, or headless servers, Cursor doesn’t follow you there. its CLI exists but doesn’t match the full IDE experience.
customization depth. .cursorrules is simpler than CLAUDE.md’s nested directory configs, hooks, and skill system. for teams with complex codebases and specific agent behaviors, Claude Code’s customization goes deeper.
lock-in. it’s a proprietary VS Code fork. your .cursorrules don’t transfer to other tools. your agent configurations don’t export. if you leave, you start over.
context management. less granular control over what goes into the AI’s context compared to Claude Code’s explicit MCP server stacking and tool routing.
the honest take
Cursor is excellent software. the Tab completions are addictive. the agent mode is genuinely productive. the UI is polished. for developers who work primarily in an IDE and want AI integrated into that experience, it’s the best option available.
the question is whether IDE-integrated AI is the right architecture for where coding is going. if coding becomes primarily about delegation — describing tasks and reviewing results — the IDE’s visual chrome becomes overhead. if coding stays primarily about writing code with AI assistance, the IDE is exactly right.
probably both modes will coexist. and probably you should use Cursor for one and Claude Code for the other.
see the full comparison for the feature-by-feature breakdown.
related
→ Claude Code vs Cursor — detailed comparison → AI coding assistants landscape — the broader market → terminal-native AI coding — the alternative philosophy → why Claude Code wins the terminal — the counter-argument
Ray Svitla stay evolving