last verified: 2026-04-09 | sources: cursor pricing, anthropic pricing, claude.ai plans, claude code docs
| feature | claude code | cursor |
|---|---|---|
| pricing | free tier / $20 pro / $100 max 5x / $200 max 20x per month | free (limited) / $20 pro / $60 pro+ / $200 ultra per month |
| model | opus 4.6, sonnet 4.6, haiku 4.5 | claude sonnet, GPT-4o, cursor-small, others (credit-based model selection) |
| interface | terminal CLI, VS Code extension, JetBrains extension | forked VS Code IDE (standalone app) |
| tab completion | no | yes -- inline ghost text, multi-line suggestions |
| inline editing | no (edits via tool calls shown as diffs) | yes -- highlight code, describe change, see inline diff |
| chat panel | terminal conversation | sidebar chat with codebase context |
| agentic mode | yes (native -- always agentic) | yes (composer agent mode) |
| extensibility | hooks, plugins, skills, agents, commands, MCP servers | rules files, MCP support, limited extension points |
| open source | yes | no |
| team plan | -- (enterprise via API) | $40/user/mo (teams) |
Cursor uses a credit-based system -- check cursor.com/pricing for current limits. every paid plan includes a credit pool equal to your subscription cost. AI features consume credits based on the model used and request complexity. this means your effective usage depends on which models you lean on -- heavy claude opus usage burns credits faster than cursor-small.
claude code has hooks (intercept any tool call before/after execution), plugins (persist data across sessions, run background analysis), skills (reusable workflow templates), agents (subprocesses with their own context), and commands (slash-invoked utilities). cursor has rules files and MCP support, but nothing like the hook/plugin/agent stack.
this matters most for power users who want to build custom workflows: blocking dangerous commands, mining session data, running automated code sweeps, preserving context across compactions. these patterns don't exist in cursor's extension model.
if your workflow lives in the terminal -- git, docker, ssh, kubectl, make -- claude code meets you where you are. no context switching to an IDE. cursor requires you to work inside its forked VS Code environment. some developers prefer that, but terminal-native developers lose workflow continuity in an IDE.
claude code works in any terminal, plus VS Code and JetBrains extensions. cursor is the IDE -- if you use neovim, emacs, or a different JetBrains product, cursor isn't an option. claude code doesn't care what editor you use.
every claude code session is a JSON transcript you can parse, search, and analyze. the mine plugin in this repo builds a sqlite database from session history -- searchable by file, tool, cost, model, duration. cursor has conversation history in its UI but no equivalent export/analysis layer.
claude code is open source. you can read the code, understand the tool calls, fork it, extend it. cursor is closed source. you trust the UI to show you what's happening.
cursor's AI features are woven into the editor experience. tab completion suggests code as you type. inline editing lets you highlight code and describe a change. the chat panel has full codebase context. code diffs appear in the editor gutter. this is the most polished AI-in-editor experience available.
claude code shows diffs in the terminal and applies them. it works, but it's not the same as seeing changes inline in your editor with syntax highlighting and one-click accept/reject.
cursor's ghost text suggestions appear as you type, completing lines and blocks of code. claude code doesn't do tab completion -- it's a conversational agent, not an autocomplete engine. for developers who rely heavily on intelligent autocomplete, this is a significant gap.
cursor requires zero terminal comfort. open the app, start chatting, see changes in familiar VS Code UI. the learning curve is gentle. claude code requires terminal literacy and comfort with a text-based conversation interface. cursor is more approachable for developers who live in graphical IDEs.
cursor shows proposed changes as inline diffs in the editor -- green for additions, red for deletions, click to accept. claude code shows diffs in the terminal output. for reviewing multi-file changes, cursor's visual approach is faster to scan.
| plan | claude code | cursor |
|---|---|---|
| free | limited usage | 2-week pro trial, 2000 completions, 50 slow requests |
| entry | $20/mo (Pro) | $20/mo (Pro) -- 500 fast premium requests, credit pool |
| mid-tier | $100/mo (Max 5x) | $60/mo (Pro+) |
| heavy use | $200/mo (Max 20x) | $200/mo (Ultra) |
| teams | enterprise (API-based) | $40/user/mo |
at the $20/mo tier, both tools are comparable. cursor gives you tab completion + chat + agent mode. claude code gives you full interactive terminal agent + extensibility stack. the value depends on your workflow.
cursor's credit system means your effective usage at any tier depends on which models you use. heavy opus/GPT-4o usage drains credits faster than lighter models. claude code's subscription tiers give you rate limits, not credits -- you always get the same models, just more or less throughput.
choose claude code if:
- your workflow is terminal-centric (git, docker, ssh, scripts)
- you want to build custom hooks, plugins, and agents
- you use neovim, emacs, or a non-VS-Code editor
- you want full session history export and analysis
- you value open source and transparency
choose cursor if:
- you live in VS Code and want AI embedded in the editor
- tab completion is important to your workflow
- you prefer visual inline diffs over terminal output
- you want the lowest barrier to entry
- your team needs centralized billing and admin controls
use both: many developers use cursor for in-editor work (tab completion, inline edits) and claude code for terminal tasks (complex refactors, debugging, automation, multi-repo work). they're not mutually exclusive -- they cover different surfaces.
see also: pricing comparison across all tools