While Cursor has dominated the AI coding IDE space, Windsurf has emerged as a serious competitor with its own approach to AI-assisted development. Both promise to transform how we write code, but they’ve made different bets on how to integrate AI into the development workflow.

Having used both for production AI projects, I’ve developed a clear picture of their strengths and trade-offs. This isn’t about declaring a winner. It’s about matching the tool to how you actually work.

Core Philosophy Differences

Cursor’s Approach: AI as a powerful assistant integrated throughout the IDE. You’re in control, with AI features augmenting your existing workflow. Composer enables multi-file edits, but you’re still driving the implementation.

Windsurf’s Approach: AI as an intelligent collaborator with deeper agentic capabilities. The “Cascade” feature emphasizes flows, multi-step operations where the AI maintains context across a series of related changes.

This philosophical difference shapes every interaction with each tool.

Windsurf’s Distinctive Features

Windsurf has several unique capabilities:

Cascade Flows: Windsurf’s Cascade creates persistent flows for complex tasks. It maintains context across multiple operations, remembering what you’re trying to accomplish even as the implementation spans many files and steps.

Deeper Agentic Behavior: Windsurf leans more heavily into autonomous operation. It can run commands, observe outputs, and adjust its approach based on results, more like an agent than an assistant.

Built-in Memory: Windsurf maintains conversation memory more naturally. Return to a project after days, and it remembers context from previous sessions.

Flow-Based Interaction Model: Rather than discrete chat messages, Windsurf structures work as flows. This model suits iterative implementation better than question-answer interactions.

Cursor’s Advantages

Cursor maintains its lead in several areas:

Mature Ecosystem: Cursor has been in market longer, with more polish and fewer rough edges. The experience is more refined.

Superior Inline Editing: Cursor’s Cmd+K inline editing experience remains best-in-class. Quick edits in context feel more seamless.

Composer Reliability: Cursor’s multi-file editing through Composer is well-tested. Complex refactors complete reliably.

Community and Resources: More tutorials, community content, and Stack Overflow answers exist for Cursor. Troubleshooting is easier.

Model Flexibility: Cursor offers more model choice. Switch between GPT-5, Claude 4.5, and others based on task needs.

Feature Comparison

Feature	Windsurf	Cursor
Inline completion	Good	Excellent
Multi-file edits	Good (Cascade)	Excellent (Composer)
Agentic capabilities	Excellent	Good
Context persistence	Excellent	Good
Terminal integration	Excellent	Good
Command execution	Aggressive	Conservative
Stability	Developing	Mature
Model choice	Limited	Extensive
Price	$10/month	$20/month
Learning curve	Steeper	Moderate

Real-World Scenarios

Implementing a Feature from Scratch

Windsurf’s flow-based approach shines. Start with a description, and Cascade maintains context through file creation, implementation, testing, and iteration. The persistent flow model reduces repeated context-setting.

Cursor requires more discrete interactions. Start Composer, implement the feature, then start a new session for testing, another for debugging. Effective but more manual.

Quick Bug Fix

Cursor’s inline editing wins. Cmd+K, describe the fix, accept the change. Fast and precise.

Windsurf’s flow model is overkill for simple fixes. The agentic approach adds overhead for tasks that don’t need autonomy.

Large Refactoring

Both handle this well, differently. Cursor’s Composer lets you specify exactly what to change across files. Windsurf’s Cascade can figure out more on its own but gives you less granular control.

Learning New Codebase

Windsurf’s persistent memory helps here. Ask questions over multiple sessions, and it builds understanding. Cursor requires re-establishing context each session.

Workflow Fit Analysis

Windsurf fits better if you:

• Prefer more autonomous AI behavior
• Work in long implementation sessions
• Like the flow-based interaction model
• Want the AI to remember previous context
• Are comfortable with AI running commands autonomously

Cursor fits better if you:

• Prefer more control over AI actions
• Work in shorter, discrete sessions
• Like quick inline edits
• Want model flexibility
• Prefer a more mature, polished experience

Agentic Behavior Comparison

This is where the tools diverge most:

Windsurf’s Aggressive Agency

Windsurf will run commands, observe outputs, and iterate without explicit permission for each step. This accelerates complex tasks but requires trust. You need to watch what it’s doing, especially with terminal commands.

Cursor’s Conservative Approach

Cursor defaults to asking before executing commands. More control, less autonomy. Good for safety-critical environments, slower for rapid iteration.

For AI engineering work, I often prefer Windsurf’s aggression when prototyping and Cursor’s control when modifying production code.

Pricing and Value

Windsurf: $10/month for pro features. Aggressive pricing to gain market share. Good value if the features match your workflow.

Cursor: $20/month for pro features. More expensive but more mature. Additional API costs for heavy model usage.

At these price points, the cost difference is negligible compared to productivity impact. Choose based on fit, not price.

Stability and Reliability

Cursor: More stable after longer development. Edge cases are handled better. Complex operations complete reliably.

Windsurf: Newer, with occasional rough edges. Rapid improvement, but you’ll encounter more quirks. The aggressive agentic behavior sometimes overshoots.

For critical work with tight deadlines, Cursor’s reliability matters. For experimentation and projects where some friction is acceptable, Windsurf’s innovation may be worth the trade-off.

Migration Considerations

Both are VS Code-based, so:

• Extensions generally work in both
• Keybindings and themes transfer
• Project setup is compatible

The switch isn’t costly in technical terms. It’s about learning the different interaction models and adjusting your workflow.

Future Outlook

Windsurf is betting on deeper agentic capabilities. Expect more autonomous features, better flow persistence, and stronger reasoning about complex tasks.

Cursor is refining its core experience while adding agentic features more conservatively. Expect continued polish and reliability improvements.

The competitive pressure benefits developers. Both tools are improving because of the competition.

Decision Framework

Try Windsurf if:

• You’re intrigued by more autonomous AI coding
• Flow-based work matches your style
• You’re willing to accept some instability for innovation
• The $10/month price point appeals

Stick with Cursor if:

• Reliability matters more than cutting-edge features
• You value the mature ecosystem
• Model flexibility is important
• Your workflow doesn’t need deeper agency

For new users:

• Both offer free trials
• Try both on a real project
• Your experience matters more than comparisons

My Recommendation

For most AI engineers:

Prototype and explore with Windsurf. Its agentic capabilities accelerate experimentation. The flow model suits learning and exploration.

Ship production code with Cursor. The reliability and control matter when changes have consequences. Composer’s proven track record reduces risk.

Using both isn’t crazy. Many developers use different tools for different contexts. The switching cost is low enough that matching tool to task makes sense.

For more guidance on AI development tools, see my Cursor vs Claude Code comparison and autonomous coding agents guide.

Want to discuss AI coding workflows with engineers using these tools daily? Join the AI Engineering community where we share real experiences and productivity tips.

For hands-on tutorials with AI coding tools, subscribe to my YouTube channel.