Cursor vs VS Code: Is the AI Editor Worth Switching?

The Premise

Cursor launched as a VS Code fork with a singular pitch: what if your editor understood your entire codebase and could write code alongside you? Two years in, the editor has matured significantly. But VS Code has not stood still — GitHub Copilot integration has deepened, and the extension ecosystem remains unmatched. The question is no longer whether AI belongs in your editor. It is whether Cursor's approach to AI integration justifies leaving the VS Code ecosystem behind.

We spent six weeks using both editors on production projects spanning TypeScript, Python, and Rust. This is what we found.

Installation and First Impressions

Cursor installs like any Electron app. On first launch, it imports your VS Code settings, extensions, and keybindings. The migration is nearly seamless — we had one extension (a niche TOML formatter) that failed to load, but everything else transferred without issue.

The UI is almost indistinguishable from VS Code. Cursor adds a few elements: a chat panel docked to the right, inline diff views when AI suggests changes, and a command palette entry for "Cursor AI" actions. If you squint, you might not notice you switched editors.

VS Code, obviously, requires no migration. It is the baseline. The editor is familiar to roughly 74% of developers according to the 2025 Stack Overflow survey, and that familiarity is itself a feature.

AI Code Generation

This is Cursor's core differentiator. The editor offers three modes of AI interaction:

• Tab completion — context-aware autocomplete that considers your open files, recent edits, and project structure
• Inline editing — select code, describe what you want changed, and Cursor rewrites it in place with a diff view
• Chat — a sidebar conversation that can reference files, symbols, and documentation

In practice, Cursor's tab completion felt noticeably better than Copilot in VS Code during our testing. The difference was most apparent in large codebases. When working in a 200-file TypeScript monorepo, Cursor's suggestions referenced types and patterns from files we had not opened in the current session. Copilot's suggestions, while competent, were more often limited to the immediate file context.

The inline editing feature is where Cursor pulls ahead most decisively. Selecting a function and typing "add error handling and retry logic" produced correct, idiomatic code in 8 out of 10 attempts during our tests. The diff view makes it easy to review changes before accepting them. VS Code has no direct equivalent — you would need to use Copilot Chat, copy the suggestion, and manually apply it.

// Cursor inline edit: "add retry with exponential backoff"
// Before:
async function fetchData(url: string) {
  const response = await fetch(url);
  return response.json();
}

// After (generated by Cursor):
async function fetchData(url: string, maxRetries = 3) {
  for (let attempt = 0; attempt < maxRetries; attempt++) {
    try {
      const response = await fetch(url);
      if (!response.ok) throw new Error(`HTTP ${response.status}`);
      return response.json();
    } catch (error) {
      if (attempt === maxRetries - 1) throw error;
      await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, Math.pow(2, attempt) * 1000));
    }
  }
}

Performance and Resource Usage

Both editors are Electron applications, so neither wins awards for memory efficiency. In our measurements:

Cursor consistently uses more memory. The difference is attributable to its local indexing engine, which builds a semantic map of your codebase for better AI suggestions. On a MacBook Pro with 16 GB of RAM, this was never a problem. On an 8 GB machine, you might feel the pinch with other heavy applications running.

VS Code's startup is slightly faster, and its extension loading is more optimized. Neither difference is dramatic enough to be a deciding factor.

Extension Ecosystem

This is VS Code's strongest advantage. The VS Code Marketplace hosts over 50,000 extensions. Cursor, being a fork, supports most of them — but not all. We encountered compatibility issues with three extensions during our testing: a database client, a remote container extension, and a specialized debugger for embedded systems.

For mainstream development (web, mobile, backend), Cursor's extension compatibility is good enough. For niche toolchains, you should verify your critical extensions work before committing to the switch.

Cursor's own extensions — the AI features — are not available on VS Code. This is the tradeoff: you get deeper AI integration at the cost of occasional extension friction.

Multi-File Editing

Cursor introduced "Composer" mode, which can make coordinated changes across multiple files. You describe a feature or refactor, and the editor generates changes spanning several files, presenting them as a reviewable diff set.

We tested this by asking Cursor to add a new API endpoint to a Next.js application. It correctly created the route handler, updated the TypeScript types, added a database query function, and modified the frontend component to call the new endpoint. The changes were not perfect — it missed adding a validation schema — but the starting point saved roughly 15 minutes of manual work.

VS Code with Copilot has no equivalent multi-file editing capability. Copilot Chat can discuss multi-file changes, but you implement them one file at a time.

Privacy and Data Handling

Cursor sends code to external AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic) for processing. The company states that code is not used for training and is deleted after processing. You can enable "Privacy Mode" which limits what is sent, though this reduces AI quality.

VS Code with Copilot sends code to GitHub's servers. GitHub for Business includes a data retention policy that excludes code from training. Individual Copilot plans have similar protections since mid-2024.

Neither option keeps everything local. If your organization has strict data sovereignty requirements, both editors require careful policy review. Cursor offers a self-hosted option for enterprise customers. VS Code can run without Copilot entirely.

Pricing

Cursor is roughly twice the cost of Copilot at every tier. The question is whether the deeper integration justifies the premium. For individual developers who rely heavily on AI assistance, the answer is often yes. For organizations, the cost difference at scale is significant.

Who Should Use What

Choose Cursor if:

• AI-assisted coding is central to your workflow
• You work in large codebases where cross-file context matters
• You value inline editing and multi-file refactoring
• You can absorb the higher monthly cost

Choose VS Code if:

• You depend on niche extensions
• Cost is a primary concern
• You prefer a mature, battle-tested editing environment
• Copilot's level of AI assistance is sufficient for your needs

The Verdict

Cursor is the better AI editor. VS Code is the better general-purpose editor. If you write code all day and AI tools meaningfully accelerate your output, Cursor's premium is easy to justify. If you need the broadest extension support and the most stable editing experience, VS Code remains the safer choice.

The gap between them is narrowing. VS Code's Copilot integration improves with each update, and Cursor's extension compatibility gets better as the fork matures. In a year, this might be a much closer race. Today, they serve overlapping but distinct audiences.

Try Cursor Pro free for 2 weeks · Get GitHub Copilot