Sawaram Suthar / 7 Mins Read
Updated: May 8, 2025
With the rapid growth of AI code assistants, it's hard to find which is better. So, I have compared Cursor vs Github Copilot with feature by feature. Take a look
In the rapidly evolving landscape of AI-assisted software development, Cursor and GitHub Copilot have emerged as two leading tools transforming how developers write code. If you’re wondering or want to know which one is better and why.
In this article, I have explored both tools and their capabilities, strengths, and limitations to help developers choose the right AI coding assistant.
Let’s dive in…
AI coding assistants have revolutionized software development by providing real-time code suggestions, automating repetitive tasks, and enhancing developer productivity. Both Cursor and GitHub Copilot represent the cutting edge of this technology, each with unique approaches to supporting developers through AI-powered features.
Cursor is a standalone AI code editor built on Visual Studio Code that integrates advanced AI capabilities directly into the development environment. It is a comprehensive solution combining the familiar VS Code interface with powerful AI features designed to streamline the coding process.
Cursor offers a range of AI-powered features, including intelligent code completion, chat functionality for answering coding questions, and capabilities for understanding entire codebases. As a fork of VS Code, it maintains compatibility with many VS Code extensions while adding unique AI capabilities.
The editor includes advanced features like tab completion that can predict multi-line edits, code generation through natural language prompts, and codebase-wide question answering. Cursor also features an agent mode that can autonomously edit code and perform complex tasks with minimal guidance.
Cursor's deep integration with VS Code creates a seamless development experience where AI assistance feels like a natural extension of the coding environment. The tab completion feature is particularly powerful, with users describing it as "occasionally so magic it defies reality," capable of suggesting entire code sections with remarkable accuracy.
The ability to customize AI behavior through the .cursorrules file provides developers with fine-grained control over how the AI interacts with their code. Additionally, features like Notepads allow for creating reusable templates and sharing context between different parts of the development environment.
Despite its powerful features, Cursor may occasionally struggle with complex bug detection and can sometimes misplace generated code. Users have also reported that the AI can sometimes lose context after breaks in development sessions.
The pricing structure, with Pro features at $20/month, is higher than some competitors, which might be a barrier for individual developers or small teams.
I've compared various Cursor alternatives here to get a clear idea. Take a look here.
GitHub Copilot, developed by GitHub and OpenAI, functions as an AI pair programmer that integrates with various IDEs. It aims to enhance developer productivity by providing intelligent code suggestions based on the context of the current project.
Copilot offers autocompletion-style suggestions in supported IDEs and provides a chat interface for asking coding questions. It includes features like Copilot in the CLI, which brings AI assistance to the terminal, and Copilot Edits, which allows for making changes across multiple files from a single prompt.
Recent additions include Copilot's code review capabilities and integration with GitHub Desktop to automatically generate commit messages. For enterprise users, Copilot offers knowledge bases that can be used as context for answering questions.
GitHub Copilot's wide IDE support, including Visual Studio Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Azure Data Studio, Xcode, Vim/Neovim, and Eclipse, allows developers to choose their development environment.
The tight integration with the GitHub ecosystem provides additional value for teams already using GitHub for source control. The pricing is also more accessible, with the Pro tier at $10/month compared to Cursor's $20/month.
While Copilot integrates with many IDEs, it may not offer the same depth of integration that Cursor achieves as a standalone editor. Some users report that Copilot's customization options are more limited compared to Cursor's extensive customization capabilities.
Cursor offers code generation through both inline prompts and a chat interface. The agent mode can autonomously generate and edit code across multiple files. In the other side, GitHub Copilot provides code generation through autocomplete suggestions and a chat interface. Copilot Edits allows for generating code across multiple files.
Winner: Cursor's agent mode and more flexible generation options give it a slight edge in code generation capabilities.
Cursor generates code based on various AI models and contextual understanding of the codebase. The quality can vary depending on the model and context provided. Wherein, GitHub Copilot focuses on secure coding practices and has been optimized over time with feedback from millions of developers.
Winner: GitHub Copilot has a slight advantage due to its focus on secure coding and extensive usage data for optimization.
Cursor provide advanced tab completion feature that can suggest entire diffs with "especially good memory." Users describe it as anticipating exactly what they want to do about 25% of the time. On the other side, GitHub Copilot offers autocomplete-style suggestions in supported IDEs but without some of the advanced prediction capabilities of Cursor.
Winner: Cursor's tab completion is consistently praised as more advanced and context-aware than Copilot's.
Cursor provides a chat interface with features like @Web for web search integration and the ability to reference specific parts of the codebase. Cursor is known for advanced chat functionality. Wherein, GitHub Copilot offers Copilot Chat across GitHub's website, GitHub Mobile, and supported IDEs with skills that enhance its capabilities. This consume coder many time, as chat functionality enabled at whole website level.
Winner: Both offer robust chat functionality, but Cursor's additional features like @Web search give it a slight advantage.
Cursor supports terminal commands through its agent feature, but doesn't have a dedicated terminal interface for AI assistance. On the other side, GitHub Copilot offers "Copilot in the CLI," a dedicated chat-like interface for the terminal that can suggest and explain commands.
Winner: GitHub Copilot has more robust terminal support with its dedicated CLI interface.
Cursor can understand and work with entire codebases, allowing for questions about specific code patterns or functionalities across multiple files. This gives immense authority to coder to do code at base level.
On the other side, GitHub Copilot also provide context awareness capabilities but with less emphasis on codebase-wide understanding compared to Cursor.
Winner: Cursor offers more advanced context awareness with its codebase-wide indexing and question capabilities.
Cursor provide capabilities for handling multiple files, but is still improving its multi-file editing features. And there is lots gap in handling these multiple files. But on other side, GitHub Copilot allows you to make changes across multiple files from a single prompt, with both edit and agent modes.
Winner: GitHub Copilot has more mature multi-file support with its Copilot Edits feature.
Cursor’s agent mode feature can autonomously determine which files to modify and suggest both code changes and terminal commands. Wherein, GitHub Copilot provide inbuilt agent mode inside Copilots Edits that can autonomously complete tasks.
Winner: Both offer AI agent capabilities, with Cursor's agent providing more advanced automation features.
Cursor can integrate with Builder.io's Visual Copilot plugin to convert Figma designs directly to code within the editor. Thats the power of Cursor, you can literally integrate as many third party tools. Wherein, GitHub Copilot provide limited information about design-to-code capabilities in the available research.
Winner: Cursor has a clear advantage with its design-to-code integration capabilities.
Cursor offers extensive customization through features like the .cursorrules file, Notepads, and custom AI models. Users can define project-specific rules for the AI. On the other side, GitHub Copilot provides custom instructions to enhance chat responses, but with fewer options for fine-tuning AI behavior.
Winner: Cursor offers more robust customization options for controlling AI behavior.
Cursor functions as a standalone editor based on VS Code, limiting its integration to the VS Code ecosystem. Wherein, GitHub Copilot integrates with multiple IDEs including VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Azure Data Studio, Xcode, Vim/Neovim, and Eclipse.
Winner: GitHub Copilot's wide IDE support gives developers more flexibility in their choice of development environment.
Cursor offers a free Hobby tier, a Pro tier at $20/month, and a Business tier at $40/user/month. Wherein, GitHub Copilot provides a free tier, a Pro tier at $10/month or $100/year, and a Pro+ tier at $39/month or $390/year.
Winner: GitHub Copilot offers more affordable pricing, particularly for individual developers.
Cursor supports multiple AI models including GPT-4, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5/3.7 Sonnet, and allows users to add custom models. On the other side, GitHub Copilot supports limited models including Anthropic Claude models, Google Gemini models, and OpenAI models.
Winner: Cursor provides more flexibility with model selection and custom model support.
| Feature | Cursor | GitHub Copilot | Winner |
| Code Generation | Generates code via prompts, chat, and autonomous agent mode. Excels at multi-line tab completion and complex edits. | Provides autocomplete suggestions and Copilot Edits for multi-file generation. Focused on secure coding practices. | Cursor |
| Code Quality | Context-aware suggestions, but may require manual refinement. | Optimized for security with millions of developer feedback cycles. | GitHub Copilot |
| Tab Completion | "Magic" predictions (anticipates needs 25% ofthe time), multi-line diff suggestions. | Standard autocomplete with single-line focus. | Cursor |
| Chat Functionality | @Web search integration, codebase-specific queries, and Notepads for context sharing. | IDE-agnostic chat with GitHub ecosystem integration. | Cursor |
| Terminal Support | Agent mode suggests terminal commands but lacks a dedicated CLI. | Copilot in CLI provides terminal-specific assistance and command explanations. | GitHub Copilot |
| Context Awareness | Understands entire codebases, references multiple files simultaneously. | Limited to open files and recent context. | Cursor |
| Multi-file Support | Capable but still developing (agent mode can edit multiple files). | Mature Copilot Edits feature handles cross-file changes efficiently. | GitHub Copilot |
| AI Agent | Autonomous agent performs complex tasks with minimal guidance. | Basic agent mode requires explicit instructions for edits. | Cursor |
| Design-to-Code | Integrated Builder.io plugin converts Figma designs directly to code. | No native design conversion features. | Cursor |
| Customization | .cursorrules config, custom models, and project-specific AI behavior. | Limited to custom instructions and response formatting. | Cursor |
| IDE Integration | VS Code-based standalone editor (fewer supported platforms). | Broad IDE support (JetBrains, VS, Xcode, Vim) and GitHub ecosystem integration. | GitHub Copilot |
| Pricing | $20/month (Pro), $40/user/month (Business). | $10/month (Pro), $39/month (Pro+). | GitHub Copilot |
| Model Flexibility | Supports GPT-4/4o, Claude 3.5/3.7, and custom models. | Uses curated mix of Claude, Gemini, and OpenAI models. | Cursor |
Both Cursor and GitHub Copilot offer powerful AI assistance for developers, with each excelling in different areas. Cursor stands out for its deep integration with the coding environment, advanced tab completion, customization options, and context awareness. GitHub Copilot offers advantages in IDE support, multi-file editing, terminal integration, and more affordable pricing.
For developers seeking the most advanced AI coding experience and willing to use a standalone editor, Cursor provides cutting-edge features that can significantly boost productivity. For those preferring to stay with their current IDE or seeking a more affordable option, GitHub Copilot offers excellent AI assistance with broader compatibility.
The choice ultimately depends on individual workflow preferences, budget constraints, and specific feature requirements. As AI coding assistance continues to evolve, both tools are likely to introduce new capabilities that further enhance the software development process.
Let me know which works for you? And why?
You’ll also receive some of our best posts today
Sawaram Suthar (Sam) is a Founding Director at Middleware. He has extensive experience in marketing, team building and operations. He is often seen working on various GTM practices and implementing the best ones to generate more demand. He has also founded a digital marketing blog - TheNextScoop.
