Cursor

Verdict

Cursor is the best AI coding tool available today for anyone who builds production software. It sits on top of VS Code — same shortcuts, same extensions, same muscle memory — but the agentic layer underneath it is in a different class. If you're running an AI agency and shipping code, Cursor is where you should be working.

The reason it wins isn't autocomplete (Windsurf is comparable there). It's the Composer agent. You give it a complex task — "refactor this service to use the new auth pattern, update all the tests, and fix the types" — and it works through your real codebase, edits multiple files, runs the checks, and comes back with something that actually builds. That's the loop I use daily, and it's meaningfully faster than anything else I've tried.

5 ways I actually use it

1. Agentic refactors across the whole repo. When I'm standardizing patterns across a codebase — adding error handling, migrating to a new client pattern, updating all the API routes — I describe the pattern once and Cursor applies it everywhere. I review the diff, not the implementation.

2. Debugging with full file context. I paste the error, hit Cmd+K on the relevant file, and Cursor traces back through the call chain to find the root cause. It reads the actual file contents, not just what I paste.

3. Writing tests after the fact. I write the feature, then ask Cursor to generate the test suite for it. It reads the implementation, infers the edge cases, and produces tests that actually catch real issues — not just happy-path coverage.

4. Drafting documentation from code. For client-facing work, I use Cursor to turn complex implementations into readable explanations. Point it at a function, ask for a plain-language description, paste into the client doc.

5. Prototyping unfamiliar APIs. When I'm integrating a new library, I drop in the docs via @Docs or the URL, then ask Cursor to write the integration code using those specific APIs. Fewer hallucinated method names than vanilla GPT.

Where it shines

Cursor is strongest when you're working in a large, real codebase with real types, real tests, and complex interdependencies. The bigger your project, the more value the agentic mode provides — it can navigate across files in ways that a simple autocomplete can't.

MCP support is genuinely useful. I run Claude Code and a few custom MCP servers pointed at my Neon database — Cursor picks up those tools and uses them in agentic workflows.

The .cursorrules and project-level context files let you encode your team's conventions so you're not re-explaining them every session. That investment compounds.

Where it falls short

Not for privacy-sensitive environments. Cursor sends your code to their servers (and to Anthropic/OpenAI). If you're working with a client on proprietary IP, check their enterprise data handling agreement.

No terminal-native mode. If you live in the command line, Claude Code is a better fit. Cursor is an IDE-centric tool — its power comes through the GUI.

Model flexibility has limits. You can bring your own API key and switch models, but the experience is optimized for Anthropic and OpenAI. Some models work better than others.

Our take

Cursor Pro at $20/month is one of the best value subscriptions in the AI agency stack. If you're shipping code, it pays for itself in the first day of the month.

If you're choosing between Cursor and Claude Code: use both. They're complementary. Cursor for interactive GUI coding; Claude Code for long autonomous terminal tasks, scripting, and infra work.

The one thing I'd tell someone starting out: don't just use autocomplete. The Composer agent is where the real leverage is. Learn that workflow first.