AI-powered code editors (or IDEs) have come a long way. Two notable choices among developers include Cursor AI and Windsurf. But which one of these is the better option? (…assuming one of them is better than the other) Both offer some unique functionalities, advanced coding assistance, and LLM support like this one, and both are based on the popular Visual Studio Code (VSC) platform.
We conducted our tests to determine the best use cases for Cursor and Windsurf. To be clear early on, both these IDEs are impressive in their own right. But there are some nuances. Let’s get into them.
Cursor vs Windsurf Overview
Cursor: Power and Precision
Cursor is one of the most sophisticated and feature-rich AI-powered IDEs you can find. It combines AI tools with extensive manual control and is designed for developers who want precision and a wide array of options for code generation, editing, and debugging. Cursor’s philosophy revolves around enabling developers with robust AI-driven features while maintaining granular control over the development process. While we’ll take a detailed look at the pricing later in the article, for starters, Cursor’s paid plans start at $20/seat. You can read a detailed dedicated article about Cursor here.
Windsurf: Simplicity and Accessibility
Windsurf prioritizes simplicity and ease of use. It’s designed to be as seamless and intuitive a code editor as possible, making it accessible to both novice and experienced developers. Windsurf’s focus on a clean user interface and streamlined workflows ensures that developers can focus on writing code without unnecessary distractions. Compared to Cursor’s $20/seat monthly pricing, Windsurf starts its plans at $15/seat/month, hence cheaper.
Some Standard Features Between Cursor & Windsurf
Both Cursor and Windsurf come equipped with the standard features expected from modern AI-powered IDEs, which include but are not limited to:
- AI-driven auto-completions: Both editors leverage AI to provide intelligent code suggestions, reducing the need for manual typing and minimizing errors.
- Chatting with your codebase: Developers can interact with their codebase using natural language queries, making it easier to understand and modify complex code.
- Generating and updating multiple files: Both tools allow for bulk code generation and updates, streamlining large-scale projects.
- Inline editing of code with AI: Developers can make real-time edits to their code with AI assistance, ensuring accuracy and efficiency.
What’s Inside? AI Models Powering Cursor and Windsurf
Both Cursor and Windsurf rely on advanced AI models to enhance the coding experience. Specifically, they use OpenAI’s ‘o’ models and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet (you can try it here) for high-level tasks such as code generation and context-aware suggestions. Smaller models handle simpler tasks like inline completions and minor edits. While the underlying AI models are similar, the way these tools integrate and present AI features differs significantly.
Cursor vs Windsurf UI and UX
The user interface plays a critical role in determining the usability and appeal of a code editor. A cluttered or unintuitive UI can hinder productivity, while a clean and well-designed interface can enhance the coding experience.
Cursor
Cursor’s UI is packed with features, offering developers a wealth of options for code generation, debugging, and customization. However, this abundance of features can be overwhelming, particularly for new users. The interface is known for numerous buttons, menus, and sub-options, which may require a steeper learning curve. While this level of control is beneficial for experienced developers, it can be intimidating for beginners.
Windsurf
Windsurf’s UI is designed with simplicity in mind. It features a clean, minimalist layout that minimizes distractions and allm8ZzQGoKkoe2EP@75w5s0M08m8ZzQGoKkoe2EP@75w5s0M08ows developers to focus on their code. The intuitive design makes it easy to navigate, even for those who are new to AI-powered code editors. Windsurf’s emphasis on a streamlined experience ensures that developers can quickly get up to speed without being bogged down by unnecessary complexity.
Cursor vs Windsurf AI Integration and Features
Both Cursor and Windsurf integrate AI to automate tasks, generate code, and provide intelligent suggestions. Though their approaches to AI integration differ significantly.
Cursor: A Comprehensive AI Assistant
Cursor adopts a “kitchen sink” approach to AI integration. It offers AI-powered features for nearly every aspect of the development process. From error fixing and debugging to code generation and optimization, Cursor provides AI-driven assistance at every turn. This comprehensive approach makes it a powerful tool for developers who want to leverage AI to its fullest potential.
Windsurf: High-Level Simplicity
Windsurf, in contrast, focuses on high-level, simple interactions with code. Its default chat mode, known as Agentic Mode, automatically indexes and pulls relevant code as needed, running commands on behalf of the developer. This approach avoids cluttering the UI with excessive buttons and code diffs, creating a more focused and efficient coding environment.
Cursor vs Windsurf Key Features Comparison
Instead of being wordy, let’s just compare the features using a table:
| Feature | Cursor | Windsurf |
| Agentic Mode | Composer mode defaults to normal (not agentic); requires manual file selection for context generation | Default chat mode is agentic, automatically indexing and pulling relevant code |
| Code Diffs | Always displays inline code diffs, emphasizing close code review | Requires clicking the “Open Diff” button to view code differences in the full code pane |
| Multi-tabbing | Supports multi-tabbing for applying changes across multiple files | Not explicitly mentioned |
| Context Management | Robust context management with options to add doc sets, web pages, git branches, and commits | Basic context awareness and limited indexing |
| Commit Messages | Automatically generates commit messages with customizable rules | Not explicitly mentioned |
| Bug Finder | Experimental bug finder scans code changes for potential bugs | Not explicitly mentioned |
| Workflow | Requires accepting changes before seeing results, making reverting changes more difficult | Writes AI generations to disk before approval, allowing real-time preview and easier iteration |
| Terminal AI | Hijacks Command+K for AI terminal, which cannot be overridden | AI-driven command instructions |
| Extensibility | Full VS Code plugin compatibility | Full VS Code plugin compatibility |
Takeaway: Cursor has more features and better context management, while Windsurf is simpler and faster. Windsurf’s real-time previews make iteration easier, but Cursor offers things like automatic commit messages. Choose Cursor for power and windsurf for ease of use.
Collaboration and Version Control
Both Cursor and Windsurf benefit from seamless integration with Git and other version control systems, enabling effective collaboration and efficient code management. However, Cursor’s ability to automatically generate commit messages provides an additional layer of convenience, streamlining the version control process.
Performance and Speed
Performance is a critical factor in determining the usability of a code editor, especially for large projects.
Cursor: Occasional Performance Issues
Some users have reported occasional lags and performance issues with Cursor, particularly when working on large or complex projects. These issues can disrupt the coding experience and reduce productivity.
Windsurf: Optimized for Speed
Windsurf is engineered to be lean and fast, with optimized load times and reduced memory footprint. This makes it particularly well-suited for developers who prioritize speed and efficiency, especially on Linux systems.
Cursor vs Windsurf Pricing Comparison
Pricing is an important consideration when choosing a code editor. Windsurf is generally more affordable. Let’s first take a look at Cursor’s pricing:
Besides its ‘Hobby’ free plan, Cursor also offers a Pro (@$20/month) and a Business (@$40/user/month) plan. The Pro plan offers 10 o1-mini uses per day, which is noteworthy.
For Windsurf, while it’s cheaper (on avg.) its pricing model can be a bit complicated. (unlike it’s IDE) Let’s have a look:
(besides a free plan) Windsurf Pro plan (@$15/month) offers 500 Premium model prompts, while the ‘Pro Ultimate’ (@$60/month) offers infinite premium model prompts, which should be enough for most people. But Windsurf also offers dedicated Team plans (Teams@$35/user/month and Teams Ultimate@$90/user/month), as you can see in the screenshot below:
(taken from Windsurf’s pricing page)
Cursor vs Windsurf Target Audience
Cursor: Professional Developers
Cursor is geared toward professional developers who value power, control, and a comprehensive suite of AI-powered tools. Its extensive feature set and robust context management make it ideal for experienced developers who are comfortable with a steeper learning curve.
Windsurf: Beginner-Friendly
Windsurf is designed for developers who prioritize simplicity, ease of use, and a clean UI. Its intuitive design and streamlined workflow make it accessible to developers of all skill levels, particularly beginners.
Cursor vs Windsurf Strengths and Weaknesses
Let’s understand Cursor and Windsurf’s strengths and weaknesses via this handy table:
| Feature | Cursor | Windsurf |
| Strengths | Extensive set of AI-powered featuresRobust context managementAutomatic commit message generationExperimental bug finder | Clean and intuitive UIEasy to use, even for beginnersFaster performanceReal-time preview of AI-generated changesPrivacy-focused approach |
| Weaknesses | Cluttered and overwhelming UI Steeper learning curveOccasional performance issuesRequires accepting changes before seeing results | Fewer AI-powered features than CursorBasic context awareness |
Our Testing Insights
To provide a more comprehensive comparison, we conducted hands-on testing of both Cursor and Windsurf across various scenarios, including code generation, debugging, and collaboration. Here are some key insights:
- Code Generation: Both editors performed well in generating code snippets, but Cursor’s ability to handle complex queries and provide detailed explanations gave it an edge.
- Debugging: Cursor’s experimental bug finder proved useful in identifying potential issues, though it occasionally flagged false positives. Windsurf’s simpler approach was less intrusive but also less comprehensive.
- Collaboration: Cursor’s automatic commit messages and robust context management made it easier to collaborate on team projects. Windsurf’s streamlined workflow was more suitable for individual developers or small teams.
- Performance: Windsurf consistently outperformed Cursor in terms of speed and responsiveness, particularly on Linux systems.
The Verdict
Both Cursor and Windsurf offer free plans, so better to give each a try before purchasing a plan in case you’re unsure. But based on this article, the differences must be clear: Cursor for sophistication and advanced features, and Windsurf for speed, simplicity, and efficiency. Another thing to mention is that if you’re coming off from a place like Bolt.new, Windsurf might just be the better option for you.