Cursor
AI coding agent
Start new thread

Cursor or Claude Code?

by
•

I love . It's enabled me to build (vibe code) so many web apps, sites, extensions, and little things quickly that 1. bring me joy and 2. help me with work or realize personal projects.

However... I'm seeing a TON of movement around 's Claude Code. I haven't personally tried it but it's apparently insane (and can also be expensive?)

I'm curious. Should I switch? What are you currently using? Or do they both have their own use case. I right now like cursor because I can build directly in a GitHub repo or locally and it helps me learn my way around an IDE.

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts!

21K views
The thread debates whether developers should stick with Cursor or switch to Claude Code, with a loose consensus emerging: Claude Code often delivers higher-quality, first-try results, but Cursor excels for IDE-native control, visibility, and cost efficiency.
Several makers reported moving from Cursor to Claude Code for accuracy and fewer iterations—one even cites a ~30% reduction in rework across users (syedahmedz), who also notes a VS Code extension for Claude Code (follow-up). Others echo that Claude Code feels “next level” on the Claude Max plan (sharvin_zlife) and consistently strong in terminal-centric workflows (martin_rue, kyle_gani). Still, price and CLI heaviness are recurring drawbacks (steveb).
Cursor loyalists value its IDE diff view, GitHub repo flow, and hands-on learning, preferring a UI over terminal for control and understanding changes (hi_caicai; priyanka_gosai1). Some blend tools: run Claude Code inside VS Code/Cursor until hitting token limits, then fall back to Cursor (_tijs); use Cursor for planning and MCP tools, then Claude Code for execution (gyasi_sutton). Budget-minded alternatives like Cline + Gemini also surfaced (conduit_design, leandro_sardi).
Takeaway: If you prioritize accuracy, CLI integration, and faster iteration, Claude Code shines; if you value IDE-native control, visual diffs, and steady velocity on small projects, Cursor remains a great choice—many find the best setup is using both, depending on task complexity, budget, and workflow.
Summarized with AI

Add a comment

Replies

Best

Different enough that I'd frame it as terminal-native vs IDE-native rather than better/worse.

I moved to Claude Code for a native macOS app (Swift + a chunky build system) and what won me over is that it runs the build, reads the errors, and fixes them in a loop without me babysitting that "go do the whole task" agentic feel is where it's ahead.

Cursor still wins when I want to stay in the editor and drive edit-by-edit

On cost: it can get pricey, but fewer iterations offset it for me. If you enjoy learning the IDE, keep Cursor and just throw Claude Code at one gnarly task to feel the difference

I think the Cursor vs Claude Code split is less about one replacing the other and more about where you want control to live. Cursor feels better when I need to understand and steer the diff inside an IDE. Claude Code feels better for deep terminal-heavy execution.

The part that still seems unsolved after either tool gets the app running is the launch layer: auth before paid actions, user/workspace identity, usage records, retries, and a clean way to explain cost later. Curious if people are wiring that manually after the agent builds the first version, or if you expect the coding tool itself to own more of that boundary.

I’d probably split it by where the uncertainty is. If I’m still exploring the codebase and want to see every edit, Cursor feels safer. If the task is already well-scoped and I can describe the expected outcome clearly, Claude Code tends to be faster for me.

Coming at this from a different angle than most here: I'm not a developer. Finance background, and this year I shipped a full product almost entirely through Claude Code. The terminal complaints in this thread are interesting to me because I had no IDE habit to lose, so the CLI never felt like a downgrade, it was just where the work happened. And when you can't review every line yourself, diff views matter less than whether the tool fills in the context you didn't know to give it. That's what kept me on Claude Code. If you already know your way around an IDE, the Cursor visibility argument makes sense. Starting from zero, the calculus flips.

For me the split is: Cursor when I want to stay close to the code and review diffs quickly; Claude Code when the task has a few moving parts and I need it to reason across files. The combo matters more than picking one forever.

I’d keep both for different moments: Cursor when I want to stay close to the diff and learn the codebase, Claude Code when the task is already well-scoped and I just want a stronger first pass. The handoff between “explore” and “execute” is usually the part that decides which one feels better.

I moved from Cursor to Codex. Cursor has too many issues, causes too many errors, where Codex has been pretty clean and I very rarely have any issues with it. I'm not too sure about Claude as I've not used it or even looked at it yet.

For me the split is less “which one wins” and more “where do I want to keep control.” Cursor is still nicer when I need to see every diff, while Claude Code is better when the task is already well-scoped.

I’d treat them less like replacements and more like two modes: Cursor when I want to stay close to the diff, Claude Code when the task is bigger and I need the agent to hold more context.

I’d treat them as different modes rather than a full switch. Cursor is nicer when I want to stay close to the diff, while Claude Code feels better for bigger terminal-heavy tasks where planning and test loops matter.

First
Previous
•••
567
Next