Cursor vs Windsurf 2026: Which AI IDE Is Actually Better?

Two AI-first code editors have separated themselves from the pack: Cursor and Windsurf. Both are built on VS Code, both use frontier AI models under the hood, and both promise to fundamentally change how you write software. In practice, they have meaningfully different approaches, strengths, and weaknesses.

This comparison is based on real development work across Python backends, JavaScript frontends, and multi-language projects. We looked at code quality, context handling, autocomplete accuracy, agentic capabilities, pricing, and the things each tool actually gets wrong.

For context on how these tools fit the broader landscape, also see our roundup of best AI code assistants and the separate comparison of ChatGPT Codex vs Claude Code. You might also want to explore our picks for best AI code assistants.

Quick Comparison: Cursor vs Windsurf

What Is Cursor?

Cursor is a VS Code fork that launched in 2023 and became the dominant AI IDE by early 2025. It pioneered the multi-file editing pattern with its Composer feature, where you describe a change in natural language and the AI proposes a diff across as many files as needed. The codebase context feature indexes your entire project so the AI understands which functions call what, where types are defined, and how modules connect. We also cover this topic in our guide to Cursor vs Claude Code.

Cursor supports multiple AI backends and lets you choose between GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.7, Gemini 2.0, and others depending on your subscription level. The inline chat, Terminal AI, and @codebase references all work without leaving the editor.

What Is Windsurf?

Windsurf is the AI IDE from Codeium, released in late 2024 as a more aggressive bet on agentic coding. Where Cursor added AI to an existing editor workflow, Windsurf was designed from the start around what it calls “Flows” — extended AI agents that can plan and execute multi-step tasks, run terminal commands, browse documentation, and make changes across files without constant user approval for each step. If you’re exploring options, check out our guide to Copilot vs Cursor vs Windsurf. If you’re exploring options, check out our guide to Copilot vs Cursor.

The result is an editor that feels more autonomous than Cursor by default. Windsurf’s Cascade agent can take a high-level task, break it into steps, and execute them — reading files, writing code, running tests, and iterating — with minimal interruption. The experience is closer to assigning work to a collaborator than prompting a tool.

Code Quality: Which Writes Better Code?

Both tools use the same underlying models (primarily Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o on their Pro tiers), so raw code quality is largely determined by which model you select rather than the IDE itself. On equivalent models, code output is nearly identical.

Where they differ is in how context is used. Cursor’s codebase indexing has been refined over two years and tends to produce more consistent results on large projects. When you ask Cursor to “add a new endpoint that follows the pattern of the existing ones,” it reliably finds the right examples. Windsurf’s context understanding is strong but can occasionally miss relevant code in very large repos.

For greenfield projects or smaller codebases, the difference is negligible. Both tools write clean, idiomatic code that needs minimal cleanup.

Agentic Capabilities: Windsurf’s Key Advantage

This is where the tools diverge most significantly. Windsurf’s Cascade is genuinely more capable as an autonomous agent. It will:

• Plan multi-step tasks before starting execution
• Run terminal commands (tests, builds, linting) and respond to failures
• Iterate on its own changes when something does not work
• Browse web documentation when it needs current information
• Make changes across files in a more fluid, integrated way

Cursor’s Agent mode (previously Composer) does multi-file edits effectively but requires more hand-holding. It proposes changes for you to review more frequently, which is safer but slower for complex tasks where you trust the AI’s judgment.

The practical implication: Windsurf is better for “build me a feature” style tasks. Cursor is better for “help me make this specific change” tasks where you want to stay closely in control.

Autocomplete: Cursor Wins on Speed

For line-by-line and multi-line autocomplete, Cursor is faster and more responsive than Windsurf. The inline prediction latency is lower, and the ghost text suggestions feel more natural for continuous coding. Windsurf’s autocomplete works well but has slightly higher latency that becomes noticeable during fast typing sessions.

Both tools significantly outperform GitHub Copilot on context-awareness for larger files. They understand what you are trying to accomplish at the function level, not just predicting the next tokens.

Pricing: Windsurf Is Cheaper

Windsurf Pro costs $15/month, compared to Cursor Pro at $20/month. Both have free tiers that provide meaningful access for light users.

Cursor’s free tier includes 2,000 completions per month and 50 slow premium requests. Windsurf’s free tier includes a limited number of Cascade Flows. For daily professional use, both free tiers run out quickly and the paid plans are effectively required.

Business plans are $40/user/month for Cursor and $35/user/month for Windsurf, adding team controls, centralized billing, and audit logs.

Privacy and Enterprise Features

Both tools offer privacy modes where your code is not stored or used for model training. Both have achieved SOC 2 Type II certification, making them acceptable in most enterprise security reviews.

Cursor has had more time to build out enterprise integrations and has a larger installed base in enterprise engineering teams. Windsurf is catching up but is still newer to the enterprise sales motion.

Ecosystem and Extensions

Both editors are VS Code forks, which means they support VS Code extensions natively. Your existing Python debugger, linting configuration, Git integration, and theme preferences transfer directly. There is no meaningful extension ecosystem difference.

Cursor has a larger user community and more third-party tutorials, which matters when you hit edge cases or want to learn advanced workflows. Windsurf has strong documentation but fewer community resources.

Which Should You Choose?

Choose Cursor if:

• You want to stay closely in control of AI-generated changes
• You are working on a large, complex codebase where context accuracy matters most
• You prefer the more established tool with a bigger community
• You do a lot of inline autocomplete during active coding sessions

Choose Windsurf if:

• You want the AI to take longer tasks end-to-end with minimal interruption
• You are building new features or prototypes where agentic autonomy is more valuable than control
• Budget matters and $5/month makes a difference
• You prefer an editor that feels more like a collaborator than a tool

Many developers use both: Windsurf for prototyping and feature development, Cursor for code review, refactoring, and precise edits. Since both run on VS Code and support the same extensions, switching between them has low overhead.

If you are evaluating which AI coding assistant fits your full workflow — including non-IDE tools — the broader comparison of AI tools for Python developers and AI code review tools covers the landscape beyond just the IDE.

Related: See our guide to best AI for coding.

Related: See our guide to ChatGPT Codex vs Claude Code.