Claude Code vs Cursor

Both start at $20/mo for the cheapest paid plan, and both offer checkpoints so a beginner can roll back when the agent makes a mess. The difference is trying before you pay: Cursor's free Hobby plan includes limited Agent requests and access to Composer, while Claude Code is not included on the Free plan at all. Cursor also runs as a desktop IDE built on a VS Code fork, a familiar editor for most newcomers, whereas Claude Code leads with a terminal CLI. Neither publishes how much usage the entry plan includes, so the free tier and the editor-first setup decide it.

Code training policy matters most here. Cursor states that with Privacy Mode on, code is not used for training, while Claude Code's published policy covers its consumer plans (Free, Pro, Max), where training is left to user choice. On everything else the two match: both offer self-hostedself-host - Run the software on your own servers instead of the vendor’s cloud. or VPC deployment, a zero data retention option, SOC 2 and admin audit logs. Both put SSO on team plans and up; Cursor lists SAML/OIDC SSO from $40/user/mo, while Claude Code's Team plan is $25/user/mo. Claude Code is cheaper per seat, but Cursor's clearer no-training commitment carries more weight in a security review.

What the free plan actually allows decides this one. Cursor's Hobby plan gives limited Agent requests and access to Composer at no charge, while Claude Code is not included on the Free plan at all, so real agent work there starts at a paid plan. Both let you bring your own API key, and both price their cheapest paid plan at $20/mo, so neither point changes the picture. Neither publishes support for running local models. For a developer who wants to try agent work before paying, Cursor is the only one of the two with a usable free tier.

Running models on your own machine is the deciding factor, and neither Claude Code nor Cursor publishes support for local models or a list of supported model providers. Both let you bring your own API key, which helps with billing control but still sends requests to a hosted model rather than keeping code on the laptop. Claude Code's license is proprietary and Cursor does not publish its license, so licensing does not separate them either. Developers who need offline, local inference cannot confirm it from either vendor.

For teams that want to read, fork or self-hostself-host - Run the software on your own servers instead of the vendor’s cloud. the agent, the license matters most, and neither tool offers an open-source one. Claude Code is proprietary, with its npm package pointing to a license in its README, and Cursor does not publish a license at all. Neither publishes a list of supported model providers, local model support or GitHub stars, so nothing else separates them. Both are commercial products with paid plans starting at $20/mo rather than code you can run yourself.

For shell-first developers, where the agent runs is the deciding factor. Claude Code's primary surface is a terminal CLI, with nine more surfaces beyond it, while Cursor leads with a desktop IDE built on a VS Code fork plus an Agents window. Past that, the two are even: both run terminal commands, both offer background and cloud agents, both support MCP, and both read project rules files (CLAUDE.md for Claude Code, AGENTS.md and.cursor/rules for Cursor). For someone who lives in the shell, an agent built around the command line is the better fit.

For developers staying in VS Code, editor support matters most. Claude Code runs as an extension inside VS Code and inside Cursor, so you keep your existing editor, while Cursor works only in its own editor, a VS Code fork you would have to switch to. Both make autonomous multi-file edits and both offer checkpoints for rolling back. Cursor adds codebase indexing, which Claude Code does not publish, and neither publishes how much usage the entry plan includes. Indexing is a real plus for Cursor, but working inside the editor you already use is the bigger factor here.