7 Top Cursor Alternatives in 2025: Finding Your Perfect AI Coding Companion

With the widespread adoption of AI across various industries and functions, people are seeking to integrate it into every aspect. Whether you’re simply searching for a single query, writing articles, building an application or website, or writing or reviewing code, AI plays an essential role.

As AI-powered coding tools continue to evolve rapidly, developers seeking alternatives to Cursor now have more options than ever. 

So, you're looking for better privacy, pricing, or features. In that case, this comprehensive guide explores the top Cursor alternatives available in 2025, helping you find the perfect coding assistant for your unique workflow and requirements.

What Makes an Ideal Cursor Alternative

The landscape of AI coding assistants has evolved dramatically in recent years, with Cursor establishing itself as a popular option for developers seeking an AI-enhanced coding experience. However, as with any tool, Cursor isn't perfect for everyone, which drives the search for alternatives that might better fit specific needs, workflows, or budgets.

An ideal Cursor alternative should deliver the core value proposition that made Cursor popular—enhanced productivity through AI assistance—while addressing some of its limitations. Based on user feedback and industry trends, the perfect Cursor alternative should excel in several key areas:

Privacy and Data Control

One of the most significant concerns with Cursor is its handling of private code. According to Reddit discussions, many developers are uncomfortable sharing their source code with third-party services. The best alternatives provide stronger privacy guarantees, with options for self-hosting or local model execution, ensuring your intellectual property remains secure.

Predictable Pricing

Cursor's $20/month subscription model with usage limits and potential additional charges for exceeding those limits has frustrated some users. The most appealing alternatives offer either completely free options (especially open-source tools) or transparent, predictable pricing without hidden costs or usage caps.

Performance and Reliability

Recent user complaints indicate Cursor has suffered from performance degradation after updates, with users noting the model "disregards established guidelines and forgets instructions after just a few edits. Strong alternatives maintain consistent performance across updates and respond accurately to instructions.

Codebase Understanding

Deep codebase understanding—the ability to index, search, and reason about your entire project—is crucial for meaningful AI assistance. The best Cursor alternatives can fully comprehend project context without requiring excessive manual input.

Seamless Integration

Rather than forcing developers to adopt an entirely new environment, top alternatives integrate smoothly with existing workflows, popular IDEs, and development tools. Some developers prefer extensions that enhance their current editor rather than switching to a completely new one.

Criteria for Evaluating Cursor Alternatives

When assessing potential replacements for Cursor, consider these key factors to ensure you select the right tool for your specific needs:

AI Model Quality

The underlying AI model ultimately determines the quality of suggestions, code generation, and contextual understanding. Some alternatives use OpenAI's models, others use Anthropic's Claude, and still others support multiple models or even local execution. Different models excel at different programming languages and tasks, so consider which will best serve your specific development needs.

User Experience

The interface and overall experience significantly impact productivity. Consider whether you prefer a standalone IDE or extensions to your existing editor. Evaluate the intuitiveness of AI interactions, the quality of code presentations (like diffs), and the smoothness of workflow integration.

Privacy Features

Privacy options range from cloud-based services with privacy policies to fully self-hosted solutions where your code never leaves your infrastructure. Determine your privacy requirements and choose accordingly.

Extensibility and Customization

The ability to customize the tool to your specific needs through settings, extensions, or even API access can significantly enhance your experience. Open-source alternatives often excel here, allowing deeper customization if you have the technical expertise.

Community and Support

A thriving community means better documentation, more examples, faster bug fixes, and a greater likelihood of long-term development. Commercial tools typically offer official support channels, while open-source alternatives rely more on community assistance.

Price-to-Value Ratio

Consider not just the absolute cost, but what you get for your money. A free tool might seem appealing, but if it saves you less time than a paid alternative, the economics might favor the paid option.

Top Cursor Alternatives in 2025

1. GitHub Copilot

GitHub Copilot, developed in collaboration with OpenAI, has established itself as one of the most prominent AI coding assistants. It leverages OpenAI's Codex model to provide intelligent code suggestions directly within your editor.

Key Features:

• AI-driven code completion and generation
• Natural language understanding to convert comments into functional code
• Integration with VS Code, Visual Studio, Vim/Neovim, and JetBrains IDEs
• Agent mode for autonomous coding tasks
• Codebase understanding capabilities
• Built on OpenAI's technology with continuous learning capabilities

What Makes It Different:

GitHub Copilot differs from Cursor primarily in its pricing structure and integration approach. While Cursor is a standalone editor fork of VS Code, Copilot integrates into existing editors. Copilot has recently matched many of Cursor's signature features, including adding agent mode to VS Code Insiders, effectively closing the feature gap between the two tools.

Pros:

• Significantly lower cost at $10/month compared to Cursor's $20/month
• No usage limits or unexpected additional charges
• Seamless integration with existing editors rather than requiring a platform switch
• Strong backing from GitHub/Microsoft suggests long-term support
• Recently added agent mode has matched Cursor's core functionality

Cons:

• Some users report that edit suggestions can sometimes be incorrect or overly forceful
• MCP (Model Control Plane) is currently only in the trial phase, while Cursor offers it fully
• Less customizable than some open-source alternatives
• Privacy concerns regarding code data usage

Pricing Plan:

• GitHub Copilot Pro: $10/month with unlimited usage subject to fair use policies
• GitHub Copilot Enterprise: Enterprise pricing for organizations

Best Fit For:

• Developers already working in the GitHub ecosystem
• VS Code users who want AI assistance without switching editors
• Teams looking for predictable pricing without surprises
• Developers who want a stable, well-supported tool with extensive language support

Latest Updates:

• Recently added agent mode to VS Code, replicating one of Cursor's key differentiators
• Now includes support for Gemini 2.5 models
• Rolling out features from Insiders to stable builds

2. Windsurf by Codeium

Windsurf, developed by Codeium, is a direct Cursor competitor that's gaining significant attention. Built on top of Visual Studio Code like Cursor, it offers a more refined user interface with comparable AI capabilities. Windsurf was acquired by OpenAI recently. 

Key Features:

• AI-driven code completion and generation
• Cascade feature—an agent that automatically fills context and runs commands
• Clean, refined UI compared to Cursor's interface
• Support for Claude 3.5 Sonnet (same model as Cursor)
• Project understanding and contextual awareness
• Auto-completion for multiple languages

What Makes It Different:

Windsurf distinguishes itself from Cursor with a more polished user interface that some users compare to "Apple vs. Microsoft" in terms of design refinement. Notably, Windsurf pioneered the agent mode feature that Cursor later adopted, showing its innovation in the space.

Pros:

• More refined, "Apple-like" UI compared to Cursor's interface
• Innovator of the agent mode (Cascade) that Cursor later adopted
• Lower starting price at $15/seat (vs. Cursor's $20/seat)
• Better instruction following according to some users
• Handles context well compared to Cursor's recent performance issues

Cons:

• Pricing model includes potentially confusing "model flow action credits"
• Uses the same underlying AI model as Cursor, limiting differentiation in generation quality
• Some users report that it lacks MCP and project indexing using embeddings
• Usage-based pricing elements could lead to surprise costs

Pricing Plan:

• Starts at $15/seat (compared to Cursor's $20/seat)
• Includes usage-based "model flow action credits" system

Best Fit For:

• Developers who value UI/UX refinement
• Teams seeking a slightly more affordable Cursor alternative
• Users are frustrated with Cursor's recent performance issues
• Developers who prioritize clean interface design and responsive performance

Latest Updates:

• Continuous improvements to the Cascade feature
• Expanding language support and context understanding capabilities
• UI refinements for a better user experience
• Windsurf was acquired by OpenAI recently.

3. Zed Editor

Created by the team behind Atom, Electron, and Tree-sitter, Zed is a "blazing fast, multi-user, productivity-focused text editor" with AI capabilities. Unlike Cursor, it's completely free and open-source.

Key Features:

• Lightweight, high-performance architecture built in Rust
• Built-in Vim mode with tooltips for key-bindings
• Language-aware editing capabilities
• Real-time collaboration features
• Distraction-free design philosophy
• Syntax highlighting and autocompletion
• Built-in terminal emulation
• Multiple cursors functionality
• Dark mode support

What Makes It Different:

Zed stands apart from Cursor with its focus on performance and lightweight design, being built in Rust rather than being a VS Code fork. It's completely free and open-source, prioritizing speed and efficiency over feature bloat.

Pros:

• Free and open-source with no pricing tiers or usage limits
• Exceptional performance due to Rust implementation
• Created by an experienced team behind popular developer tools
• Real-time collaboration features are built directly into the editor
• Works offline with no registration requirements
• No privacy concerns since the code stays local

Cons:

• As of late 2024, not available for Windows (only Mac and Linux)
• Newer project with potentially fewer AI-specific features than Cursor
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to more established tools
• May lack some advanced features of commercial alternatives

Pricing Plan:

Completely free and open-source

Best Fit For:

• Mac and Linux developers seeking a lightweight, performant editor
• Teams requiring real-time collaboration capabilities
• Open-source advocates are concerned about privacy and code ownership
• Developers who prioritize speed and minimalism over feature abundance

Latest Updates:

• Continuing development with a focus on performance optimization
• Expanding AI capabilities while maintaining the lightweight core
• Growing community contributions and extensions

4. TabbyML

TabbyML offers an open-source, self-hosted AI coding assistant approach. It allows teams to deploy their own LLM-powered code completion server, keeping all code and data within their own infrastructure.

Key Features:

• Self-hosted LLM-powered code completion
• Complete control over your code and data
• Integration with VS Code and other editors
• Support for Mac, Windows, and Linux platforms
• Syntax highlighting and code analysis
• Customizable AI models

What Makes It Different:

TabbyML's self-hosted approach is its key differentiator from Cursor. Rather than sending code to third-party servers, TabbyML lets you run everything locally or on your own servers, addressing the privacy concerns that many developers have with cloud-based services like Cursor.

Pros:

• Complete privacy with self-hosting—code never leaves your infrastructure
• Free and open-source with no usage limits or subscription fees
• Works across all major platforms including Windows, Mac, and Linux
• Customizable and extensible to fit specific organizational needs
• No dependence on third-party services or internet connectivity

Cons:

• Requires technical expertise to set up and maintain
• Performance depends on your hardware capabilities
• May have fewer features than commercial alternatives
• Development pace potentially slower than well-funded commercial options

Pricing Plan:

Free and open-source with no paid tiers

Best Fit For:

• Organizations with strict data privacy requirements
• Teams with the technical resources to self-host and maintain
• Developers working in regulated industries with compliance concerns
• Open-source advocates who prefer complete control over their tools

Latest Updates:

• Continual improvements to self-hosting capabilities
• Enhanced model performance and efficiency
• Expanded editor integration options

5. Void

Void positions itself as "the open source Cursor alternative," addressing the privacy concerns that many developers have with Cursor's closed-source approach. It allows developers to host their own AI models locally and maintain complete data privacy.

Key Features:

• Open-source code editor with Cursor-like AI features
• Self-hosting option for AI models
• Private data handling that never shares your code
• Built as a VS Code fork, similar to Cursor's approach
• Community-driven development and extension
• Access to all prompts used by the AI

What Makes It Different:

While Cursor requires sending private code through their backend, Void lets you choose to self-host or communicate directly with any model you prefer. This open approach means your intellectual property remains under your control while still benefiting from AI assistance.

Pros:

• Complete code privacy with self-hosted models
• Open-source nature allows community contributions and customizations
• Access to community-made AI features beyond what Cursor offers
• Full visibility into prompts used by the AI
• No subscription fees or usage limits

Cons:

• Relatively new project with potentially fewer features
• May require more technical knowledge to set up and configure
• Smaller community and support base compared to commercial options
• Performance depends on your hardware when self-hosting models

Pricing Plan:

Free and open-source

Best Fit For:

• Privacy-conscious developers are uncomfortable sharing code with third parties
• Organizations with sensitive intellectual property concerns
• Open-source advocates who prefer transparent, community-driven tools
• Developers with the technical skills to configure and potentially customize their environment

Latest Updates:

• Active development as a relatively new project
• Growing community contributions and feature additions
• Expanding model support options

6. Tabnine

Tabnine is one of the most established AI-powered code completion tools, integrating with numerous editors, including VS Code, Atom, Sublime Text, and JetBrains IDEs. It uses machine learning models trained on diverse codebases to provide accurate code suggestions.

Key Features:

• AI-powered autocompletion for multiple programming languages
• Integration with numerous popular editors
• Privacy-focused approach suitable for enterprise use
• Models trained on diverse codebases for better suggestions
• Code generation capabilities
• Available as both free and paid versions

What Makes It Different:

Tabnine focuses primarily on autocompletion excellence rather than trying to be a full IDE like Cursor. Its strong privacy focus and multi-editor support provide flexibility that Cursor lacks.

Pros:

• Exceptional autocompletion accuracy across various languages
• Strong privacy features making it suitable for enterprise environments
• Integrates with virtually all popular code editors
• Established product with years of development and refinement
• Both free and paid options to suit different needs

Cons:

• Free version has limited features compared to paid tiers
• Primary focus on autocompletion rather than broader coding assistance
• Not a full IDE solution like Cursor
• May lack some of the newest AI agent capabilities

Pricing Plan:

• Free version with basic functionality
• Pro plan for individuals
• Team and Enterprise plans for organizations

Best Fit For:

• Developers who frequently work across multiple editors
• Enterprise teams with strict privacy requirements
• Users focused primarily on improving code completion efficiency
• Developers working with multiple programming languages who need consistent assistance

Latest Updates:

• Continuously improving AI models for better suggestions
• Enhanced language support
• Performance optimizations

7. VSCode with Continue + Cline Extensions

Rather than switching to a new editor, many developers enhance VSCode with AI extensions—particularly the combination of Continue and Cline—to create functionality similar to Cursor while staying in the familiar VSCode environment.

Key Features:

• Continue: AI code assistant with context understanding
• Cline: Agent-based AI coding helper
• Works within native VSCode rather than a fork
• Customizable extension combination
• Support for various AI models, including lower-cost options
• Project indexing and context awareness
• Chat-based assistance

What Makes It Different:

This approach lets you enhance your existing VSCode installation rather than switching to a fork like Cursor. The modular nature allows mixing and matching extensions to create a customized AI assistant that fits your specific needs.

Pros:

• Uses familiar VSCode without switching editors
• Customizable feature set based on which extensions you choose
• Potentially lower cost through careful API usage management
• Compatible with your existing VSCode extensions and settings
• More flexible model selection, including lower-cost options

Cons:

• May require more setup and configuration
• Potentially less integrated experience than all-in-one solutions
• Need to manage multiple extensions rather than a single tool
• Might need technical knowledge to optimize API usage and costs

Pricing Plan:

• Free extensions
• Costs based on API usage of connected AI models
• Options for using lower-cost models to reduce expenses

Best Fit For:

• Current VSCode users who don't want to switch editors
• Developers seeking a customizable approach to AI assistance
• Budget-conscious users looking to minimize API costs
• Those who value flexibility and control over an all-in-one solution

Latest Updates:

• Both Continue and Cline receive regular updates
• Growing community support and improvements
• Expanded model support options

Bonus: Bito

Bito is an advanced AI-powered development assistant that goes beyond simple code suggestions. It integrates AI Code Review, an AI Coding Agent, and AI Chat functionalities to automate various aspects of the development workflow.

Key Features:

• AI Code Review Agent for automated pull request analysis
• Bito Wingman (AI Coding Agent) that reads tickets and updates code
• AI Chat that understands code context
• Integration with Jira, GitHub, GitLab, and Confluence
• Security vulnerability detection
• AI-powered code completion
• Static analysis capabilities

What Makes It Different:

While Cursor focuses primarily on coding assistance, Bito takes a more comprehensive approach by integrating with the broader development workflow, including ticket management, code reviews, and security analysis.

Pros:

• Automates pull request reviews and provides structured feedback
• Integrates with project management tools like Jira
• Detects security vulnerabilities automatically
• Takes active roles in the workflow rather than just providing suggestions
• Comprehensive approach to development assistance

Cons:

• Potentially more complex than more focused coding assistants
• May have a steeper learning curve
• It could be overkill for solo developers or small teams
• Less information available about limitations and pricing

Pricing Plan:

• Tiered pricing based on features and team size
• Free plan for individuals
• Business plan: $19 per user/month
• Enterprise plan: $39 per user/month

Best Fit For:

• Teams with formal development processes, including code reviews
• Organizations using Jira and other project management tools
• Development teams are concerned about security and code quality
• Engineers looking for workflow automation beyond just coding assistance

Latest Updates:

• Enhanced integration with project management tools
• Improved security analysis capabilities
• Workflow automation enhancements

Choosing the Right Cursor Alternative

When selecting from these alternatives, consider your specific needs, workflow, and constraints:

1.  For privacy-focused developers: Void, TabbyML, or Zed provide open-source options that keep your code on your systems.

2. For budget-conscious teams: GitHub Copilot offers the best value among commercial options at $10/month, while open-source alternatives like Zed are completely free.

3. For those who value UI refinement, Windsurf provides a more polished experience compared to Cursor, according to many users.

4. For developers who don't want to switch editors: Codeium or VSCode with the Continue+Cline approach lets you enhance your existing environment.

5. For teams with complex workflows, Bito offers broader integration with development processes beyond just coding.

The AI coding assistant landscape continues to evolve rapidly, with new features and tools emerging regularly. The right choice ultimately depends on your specific requirements, technical constraints, and personal preferences.

Final Thoughts

As AI coding tools mature, we're seeing increased specialization and focus on specific developer needs. Whether you prioritize privacy, performance, pricing, or specific features, today's ecosystem offers viable Cursor alternatives for every development scenario. The competition among these tools ensures continuous improvement, ultimately benefiting developers with better, more efficient coding experiences.