The 10 Best Cursor Competitors & Alternatives in 2025

Cursor has gained popularity among developers for its ability to generate code from natural language prompts, fix bugs, and refactor code with context from your project. But alternatives like Claude Code, Windsurf, and Zed cover needs that Cursor doesn’t.

‍

Platforms such as Superblocks and Replit complement Cursor by handling adjacent needs like internal tooling and quick browser-based deployments.

‍

In this article, we will:

• Compare the top Cursor competitors
• Highlight each tool’s pros and cons
• Discuss how to choose the right one for your needs

10 best Cursor competitors: Side-by-side comparison

Cursor helps developers write, edit, refactor, and debug code faster with AI. Before we dive into each alternative, here’s how Cursor compares to other AI-enabled development tools:

Why enterprises look for Cursor competitors

Enterprise teams often explore Cursor alternatives because of its usage limits, security concerns, and gaps in compliance and operational control. 

‍

Many teams switch for four main reasons:

• High pricing and usage limits: Cursor’s Pro plan costs about $20 per user per month ($40 for team seats). Competing tools like Windsurf often come in at a lower price.
• Closed architecture and limited extensibility: Cursor is a proprietary fork of VS Code. You can’t fully customize or self-host it. This creates vendor lock-in and raises data privacy concerns. Open-source tools like Cline or Zed let you pick models and deploy on-prem.
• Narrow focus on coding only: Cursor works inside the code editor but doesn’t cover UI design, workflow automation, or app building. Platforms like Superblocks offer those capabilities.
• Lack of centralized control and standardization: Cursor operates as an individual developer tool, not an enterprise platform. IT can't enforce coding standards, security policies, or approved libraries across the company.

1. Superblocks

Superblocks is an AI-native enterprise app development platform for building internal tools fast. It helps enterprises reduce shadow IT and engineering bottlenecks with a secure, governed platform.

Why it beats Cursor

• Built for teams, not individuals: Superblocks supports centralized RBAC, SSO integration, audit logs, and granular permissions. Teams can control who accesses data, which environments they use, and the standards they follow.
• Instant app generation: Clark AI generates production-ready apps from natural language prompts with full awareness of your design standards, security policies, and more.
• Hybrid deployment: You can deploy the on-premises agent in your VPC to keep the data in your network while the control plane stays on Superblocks.

Pros

• It’s centrally governed with enterprise security features like RBAC, SSO, and audit logs.
• It integrates with your databases, APIs, and your SDLC processes.
• It supports teams with mixed skills through AI, coding, and drag-and-drop editing.

Cons

• Superblocks is optimized for internal tooling, not public consumer apps.
• It has no fully on-prem deployment option yet. 

Pricing

Superblocks has custom pricing based on the number of creators, internal and external users, and the deployment model you choose.

Bottom line

Superblocks gives both technical and semi-technical users the ability to build secure internal apps in a centrally governed environment.

2. Replit

Replit offers cloud-based development environments with built-in AI assistance that runs entirely in your browser. It’s commonly used for rapid prototyping and collaborative development. It, however, struggles with enterprise-grade security requirements.

Why it beats Cursor

• All-in-one platform: Replit combines a code editor, runtime environment, instant deployments, and built-in collaboration. It eliminates most local setup and manual DevOps.
• Faster prototyping and sharing: You can deploy web apps and APIs with a single click. These apps are visible via public links, making Replit ideal for rapid demos and team sharing.
• Beginner-accessible: Its interface and always-on hosting allow those new to coding or lacking infrastructure to publish projects easily.

Pros

• Replit integrates development, deployment, and hosting pipeline in-browser. No local installations required.
• It has built-in real-time collaboration and sharing.
• It has extensive AI features like code generation, autocompletion, and debugging that accelerate learning and boost productivity.

Cons

• Everything runs in the cloud. Enterprises with strict data residency requirements may prefer Replit alternatives like Windsurf.
• Browser-based development works great for smaller projects, but can become sluggish with enterprise-scale applications. 

Pricing

Replit offers a free tier for 10 development apps. Paid plans start at $20 per month and give access to Replit Agent, unlimited private apps, and the ability to deploy and host live apps.

Bottom line

Replit is a good alternative when you need to quickly prototype, teach, or collaborate remotely without worrying about dev environment setup. It falls short for teams that require local-only development for security reasons or performance optimization on large-scale codebases.

3. GitHub Copilot

GitHub Copilot integrates AI coding assistance directly into your existing IDE. It predicts and suggests entire lines or blocks of code as you type based on natural language prompts and the context of your existing code.

Why it beats Cursor

• IDE integration: Copilot works in your current IDE without requiring a separate editor.
• Enterprise controls through GitHub: If you're already using GitHub Enterprise, Copilot inherits your existing policies. Admins can block suggestions matching public code, exclude specific files from AI processing, and manage access through your existing GitHub org structure.
• Mature and widely adopted: It’s used by millions of developers worldwide, with ongoing improvements from GitHub.

Pros

• Copilot for Business doesn't retain code snippets or use them for training.
• It’s suitable for diverse enterprise teams since it supports multiple languages and IDEs.
• It’s available on GitHub mobile and GitHub CLI.

Cons

• You cannot use Copilot inside other source control web UIs like GitLab/Bitbucket or for platform-native PR/MR reviews.
• It’s not a full editor like Cursor. It relies on the user’s local or cloud environment.

Pricing

Copilot offers a free plan for individuals that supports 50 agent mode or chat requests and 2000 completions per month. Paid plans start at $10 per month for personal use and $19 per user per month for businesses.

Bottom line

GitHub Copilot suits enterprises that use Microsoft or GitHub and want AI-assisted code without changing their existing workflows. It may not fit teams that want to avoid vendor lock-in.

4. Windsurf

Windsurf focuses on multi-file code generation and autonomous coding workflows. It’s designed for developers who want inline suggestions, AI-driven refactors, file creation, and project-wide edits directly in the editor.

Why it beats Cursor

• Cleaner interface: Where Cursor adds AI buttons and panels everywhere, Windsurf keeps the UI minimal and focused.
• Multi-IDE support: Windsurf runs as a standalone editor, but also has a plugin you can install in other IDEs.
• Real-time preview of AI changes: Windsurf shows you the results from the AI-generated code first, unlike Cursor, which makes you accept changes to see if they work. You can test the UI, check for build errors, and refine the code through multiple iterations before accepting anything.

Pros

• Pricing starts at $15/month (vs. Cursor's $20) and includes unlimited autocomplete on the free plan.
• It defaults to the agent mode, which means new developers can start coding productively without learning dozens of features.
• Enterprises can keep data within their infrastructure to guarantee zero data retention.

Cons

• Being newer means fewer tutorials and a smaller community compared to established tools.
• Prompt credits incur extra charges for heavy-generation demands.

Pricing

The pricing model revolves around prompt credits for AI interactions. Prompt credits work across all major models, including OpenAI, Claude, and Gemini. The free tier supports 25 prompt credits monthly. Paid plans start at $15/month for 500 credits/user.

Bottom line

If you like Cursor’s contextual AI coding power but need a plugin or environment that extends to other IDEs, consider Windsurf.

5. Amazon Q Developer

Amazon Q Developer is AWS’s AI-powered coding assistant designed to integrate with AWS services. It offers natural language-to-code generation, cloud resource provisioning, and application deployment guidance optimized for teams already building on AWS.

Why it beats Cursor

• AWS-native integration: It directly connects with AWS services like Lambda, DynamoDB, and ECS. This enables code generation that’s deployment-ready in the AWS ecosystem.
• Multi-skilled assistant: It can answer documentation questions, write code, and configure cloud infrastructure from a single prompt.

Pros

• Q Developer is ideal for teams working heavily in AWS.
• Q developer combines code generation with infrastructure provisioning.
• It supports multiple languages, including Mandarin, French, German, and Italian, among others, with automatic language detection.

Cons

• It’s most valuable for teams committed to AWS. The benefits drop off if you’re in a multi-cloud or on-prem environment.
• The interface and experience can feel fragmented if you’re not using AWS tools daily.

Pricing

Amazon Q Developer has a free tier that supports 50 agentic requests per month and 1000 lines of code transformations. Paid plans start at $19 per user/month for 4000 lines of code transformations.

Bottom line

Amazon Q Developer is a natural fit for enterprise teams deeply invested in AWS. It, however, offers less value if your infrastructure doesn't use AWS.

6. Cline

Cline is an open-source, AI-powered code assistant that runs locally and works through your preferred editor. It gives direct access to AI models without artificial limits.

Why it beats Cursor

• Transparent usage: Cline shows token counts and cost per task based on the model you use.
• Model flexibility: You can swap between leading models (Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, local LLMS) in a single session.
• Lightweight setup: It works as an extension without requiring a new IDE or a proprietary platform.

Pros

• You can define .clinerules for team conventions, custom standards, and project-specific instructions.
• It’s extensible through plugins and model swaps for tailored AI behavior.
• You don’t need a subscription if running Cline with a locally hosted model.

Cons

• Requires more setup and maintenance compared to hosted AI assistants.
• Token-based pricing can be costly with paid API models.

Pricing

Cline is free and open source. Costs depend on whether you connect it to paid API models like OpenAI or Anthropic or run local models that require your own compute resources.

Bottom line

Cline is a solid choice for privacy-conscious teams and developers who want full control over their AI coding environment. It’s not ideal for teams that want a plug-and-play AI assistant with minimal setup.

7. Claude Code

Claude Code is Anthropic’s agentic AI coding assistant built on the Claude LLM family. Unlike IDE-based tools, Claude Code operates natively in your terminal.

Why it beats Cursor

• Larger context windows: Claude models can handle extensive codebases and long prompts, enabling better reasoning across multiple files.
• Terminal-native, agentic automation: Claude Code lets you interact naturally at the command line and run multiple AI agents across the codebase.
• Integrations: It connects to the tools you use for deployment, databases, monitoring, and version control. Examples include GitHub, DataDog, Stripe, and Circle CI.

Pros

• It handles multi-file reasoning and large documentation requests autonomously.
• It’s customizable with project-scoped hooks, settings, and multi-agent workflows.
• It works in the terminal, VS Code, and JetBrains, and connects to external tools for tickets, documentation, and cloud resources.

Cons

• Less GUI polish for daily coding flow compared to IDE-first tools like Cursor.
• If you use the Anthropic API, the pay-as-you-go pricing can become expensive for heavy usage versus a flat subscription.

Pricing

Anthropic includes Claude Code in your Claude Pro plan, which costs $17/month billed annually. It includes access to Claude Sonnet 4. The Max 5X plan at $100 per person billed monthly is suitable for larger codebases and has access to both Claude Sonnet 4 & Claude Opus 4.1.

Bottom line

Claude Code is ideal if you want agent-driven coding automation across the entire project, not just in-editor. It falls short for developers who prefer a standalone GUI IDE.

8. Zed

Zed is an open-source code editor built for speed and collaboration. It offers native-like responsiveness, low-latency editing, and built-in chat for distributed development teams.

Why it beats Cursor

• Native multiplayer collaboration: Multiple users can code together in the same workspace with live editing, chat, and synchronized cursors.
• Remote development: Run Zed’s UI locally while keeping your codebase on a remote server to optimize local system resources.
• Open-source and customizable: Zed is fully open source, so you can extend, contribute, and tailor the editor to your needs.

Pros

• Zed offers configurable Vim emulation that replicates key motions, commands, and editing workflows directly in the editor.
• It has built-in collaboration features that are ideal for team coding and pair programming.
• Zed doesn't harvest your data for training purposes. Privacy mode is only available in Cursor’s paid tiers.

Cons

• It has a smaller extension ecosystem and a less mature plugin library compared to Cursor.
• It’s currently not available on Windows.

Pricing

Zed is free to use without the AI features. If you need AI, you can use your own API key. Paid plans (for code editor plus AI) start at $20/month, which covers 500 AI prompts/month, with usage-based billing for additional prompts.

Bottom line

Zed is a great choice for teams that want an open‑source editor with flexible customization and full transparency in how it handles data. However, it is not yet available for Windows, which may limit adoption in some environments.

9. OpenAI Codex

OpenAI Codex is an agentic AI coding assistant designed to answer questions about your codebase, fix bugs, execute code, and draft pull requests.

Why it beats Cursor

• Parallel cloud-based task execution: Codex can run multiple coding tasks like writing features, fixing bugs, or running tests simultaneously in the cloud. Each task runs in an isolated cloud container with your repo.
• Delegation and review workflow: You can delegate multiple tasks to Codex, let agents work independently, then review all proposed changes, logs, and test outputs in one place.

Pros

• You can use Codex to build domain-specific AI coding assistants.
• It’s backed by OpenAI’s research and model updates.

Cons

• Cloud-based operation introduces latency compared to real-time, in-editor tools like Cursor or GitHub Copilot.
• No official plugin for VS Code, JetBrains, or other popular IDEs. Interaction is outside the editor, via web or CLI.

Pricing

OpenAI Codex is available to ChatGPT Plus, Pro, Team, and Enterprise users. The Plus plan costs $20/month.

Bottom line

Codex is great for automating tasks across your entire codebase from the cloud. It is less suited for interactive, in-editor development or organizations requiring deep IDE integration.

10. JetBrains AI 

JetBrains AI is built directly into JetBrains IDEs like IntelliJ IDEA, PyCharm, PhpStorm, ReSharper, and Fleet. It offers context-aware chats, code completions, and an AI agent that can handle tasks autonomously.

Why it beats Cursor

• LLM-agnostic platform: JetBrains AI uses multiple LLM providers, including OpenAI, Gemini, and its own custom models.
• Broad IDE and tool coverage: It works across major JetBrains IDEs, with planned support for tools like YouTrack, Datalore, TeamCity, and Qodana.
• Offline mode: It supports local models via Ollama or LM Studio for private, offline AI use.

Pros

• Your code and data remain entirely yours by default.
• You can easily switch from light AI assistance to deeper automation or none at all.

Cons

• It’s limited to the JetBrains ecosystems.

Pricing

JetBrains AI offers free unlimited code completion and local AI use. Paid plans start at $10/user per month for extended AI usage and access to the AI agent.

Bottom line

JetBrains AI excels for developer teams who need a tightly integrated AI assistant in JetBrains IDEs. It’s not for teams using other development environments.

How we evaluated these Cursor competitors

To compare Cursor alternatives fairly, we considered several key criteria important to enterprise teams.

‍

What we looked for:

• AI capability: We looked for assistants that go beyond basic autocompletion to handle refactoring, debugging, and multi-step task execution.
• Security and privacy: Enterprises need to know their code is safe. We favored solutions that offer on-prem or hybrid deployment, or at least data privacy settings to suppress training on your code.
• Dev environment support: We checked for support of common IDEs like VS Code and IntelliJ, compatibility with required programming languages and frameworks, and integration with other development tools.

Which Cursor competitor should you choose?

The best Cursor alternative depends on your team’s priorities and use cases.

‍

To put it broadly:

• Superblocks suits teams that want to build internal tools with AI, but within their security and governance standards.
• Windsurf, JetBrains AI, and GitHub Copilot fit teams that want AI coding assistance inside existing IDEs.
• Cline and Zed work well for organizations with custom AI model requirements.
• Amazon Q Developer is ideal for AWS-focused teams.
• Claude Code and Codex CLI suit teams that prefer terminal-based workflows.

My final verdict on Cursor competitors

Cursor is excellent if you want deep, repo-aware coding assistance inside an IDE. But if you’re looking beyond code completion, the best alternative depends on your priorities.

‍

If you have a backlog of internal app requests and want to enable both business and engineering teams to build, choose Superblocks. If what you need is pure coding assistance, pick one of the IDE- or terminal-focused tools.

Build secure, governed internal tools with Superblocks

Superblocks is the best option for operationally heavy enterprises that want to solve the complexity, risk, and overhead of building and maintaining internal applications with a prompt-to-app AI internal app development platform.

‍

Our extensive set of features enables this:

• Flexible development modalities: They can use Clark, the AI agent, to generate apps from prompts, the WYSIWYG drag-and-drop editor, or code. The live 2-way sync between your code and the visual editor makes sure you don’t lose context when you switch modes.
• Context-aware AI app generation: Every app built on Superblocks abides by organizational standards for data security, permissions, and compliance. This addresses the major LLM risks of ungoverned shadow AI app generation.
• Centrally managed governance layer: Superblocks supports granular access controls with RBAC, SSO, and audit logs, all centrally governed from a single pane of glass across all users. You can integrate with secret managers for safe credentials management.
• Keep data on-prem: You can deploy the on-prem agent within your VPC to keep sensitive data in-network.
• Extensive integrations: It can integrate with any API or databases. These integrations include your SDLC processes, like Git workflows and CI/CD pipelines.
• AI app generation guardrails: You can customize prompts and set LLMs to follow your design systems and best practices.

Ready to build securely with AI? Book a free demo with one of our product experts.

Frequently asked questions

Is Superblocks an alternative to Cursor?

No, but you can edit Superblocks apps in Cursor. Superblocks supports three development modes, including AI-generated, visual, or code. When you switch to code editing, it opens your app as a React project in Cursor or another preferred IDE.

How does Cursor compare to GitHub Copilot?

Cursor is a standalone AI coding editor, while GitHub Copilot is an extension that integrates into existing IDEs like VS Code and JetBrains.

Are there free Cursor alternatives?

Yes, Cline and Zed are free open-source alternatives to Cursor that allow you to use your local AI models.

Which Cursor competitor is best for teams?

Superblocks is the best Cursor competitor for teams. It supports governance features like RBAC, SSO, audit logs, and version control that keep team collaboration secure.

Is there an open-source alternative to Cursor?

Yes, Zed and Cline are open-source alternatives to Cursor. They give you full control over the AI models you choose and the deployment method.

What’s the best Cursor alternative for full-stack apps?

Superblocks is the best Cursor alternative for full-stack internal apps. It lets teams create both front-end and back-end components with AI, visual tools, and code. It also offers deep integrations with databases and services, plus enterprise security.