Comparing Cursor AI and Windsurf: Two Leading AI Coding Assistants

Over the past several months, I've been using both Cursor AI and Windsurf extensively, not just for coding but also for knowledge management, writing, researching, and editing. Both are incredible tools that offer a glimpse into the future of AI-assisted development, but they have distinct characteristics that might make one more suitable for certain workflows than the other. Here's my comparison based on hands-on experience with both platforms.

Research Capabilities

Windsurf seems to do more research more broadly than Cursor when exploring an existing codebase. It's more thorough in analyzing the broader context and connections between different parts of your project. This comprehensive approach is particularly valuable when working in unfamiliar codebases or when trying to understand complex systems.

Cursor, on the other hand, tends to keep its scope of tasks a bit more narrow. This focused approach can be beneficial when you need targeted assistance without the AI potentially getting distracted by exploring too many tangential paths.

Adherence to Rules

Windsurf appears to adhere to project and global rules better than Cursor. If you've set specific guidelines about how code should be structured or what patterns to follow, Windsurf is more consistent in respecting these constraints. This becomes increasingly important as projects grow in size and complexity.

User Interface

The Windsurf UI is slightly better in my opinion, but the difference is barely noticeable for most day-to-day tasks. Both interfaces are clean and intuitive, but Windsurf's layout feels somewhat more polished.

Windsurf's history feature is a bit easier to use. I've run into UI problems with Cursor when trying to access old chats, which can be frustrating when you need to refer to previous solutions or explanations.

Processing Management

Cursor does a good job of telling you when it stops processing (flowing in agent mode) with a governor of 30 API calls and asks if you want to continue. This transparent approach gives you more control over your usage and costs.

Windsurf just stops processing midway through a task, and you have to explicitly tell it to continue. This can be disruptive to your workflow, especially when you're in the middle of a complex operation.

Resource Usage and Cost

Windsurf seems to use WAY more API calls (especially with Claude 3.7), and I estimate it's 2-3x more expensive than Cursor. This higher consumption isn't always justified by proportionally better results and might be a consideration for budget-conscious users.

Task Management

Windsurf will get way ahead of itself if you don't specifically tell it not to in global or project rules. This proactive approach can sometimes lead to it taking actions you didn't intend or going down paths you weren't interested in.

Cursor has a convenient keystroke for toggling between ask and agent modes, while with Windsurf, you have to do this manually. This small UX difference can add up to significant time savings over a day of heavy use.

Overall Assessment

Both tools are extraordinary and provide a glimpse of what's to come in AI-assisted development. I personally prefer Windsurf over Cursor, but they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

It's worth noting that I'm not just using these tools for coding. My evaluation extends to knowledge management, writing, researching, and editing tasks as well, which might influence my preferences in ways that are different from someone who uses these tools exclusively for programming.

As these AI assistants continue to evolve, the gap between them will likely narrow, with each adopting the best features of the other. For now, having access to both provides the most comprehensive toolkit for AI-assisted work across a variety of domains.