Cursor vs Devin Desktop (formerly Windsurf)

For a newer developer, the entry price and an easy undo matter most, and here the two line up closely. Both start at $20/mo for the cheapest paid plan, and both offer checkpoints, so you can roll back when the agent makes a mess. Neither publishes how much usage the entry tier includes. The free plans are similarly loose: Cursor's Hobby plan promises limited Agent requests plus access to Composer, while Devin Desktop offers a light quota to code with agents. Both run as a VS Code-based desktop IDE, so the setup feels familiar either way. Nothing here separates them decisively.

Both tools clear the basic security checklist, each offering a 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. Where they differ is the training policy and SSO access. Cursor states that with Privacy Mode on, code is not used for training, a clear commitment a security review can point to, while Devin Desktop's self-serve policy describes a default setting rather than a firm exclusion. Cursor also offers SAML/OIDC SSO from its Teams plan at $40/user/mo upward, whereas Devin Desktop limits SSO to Enterprise, though it adds SCIM there.

Neither free plan is generous on paper. Cursor's Hobby tier offers limited Agent requests and access to Composer, while Devin Desktop offers a light quota to code with agents. Neither publishes hard numbers, so the free allowance alone does not separate them. What matters next is whether you can keep working by bringing your own API key: Cursor supports it, while Devin Desktop says there is no general BYO API key on its current self-serve plans. When you do decide to pay, both start at $20/mo.

This use case turns on whether the agent can run against a model on your own machine, and neither Cursor nor Devin Desktop publishes local model support, a list of supported model providers, or an open license. The only related signal is key handling: Cursor supports bringing your own API key, while Devin Desktop offers no general BYO API key on its current self-serve plans. That points to hosted providers rather than local inference, so it does not settle the question. Without published local model support from either, neither can be recommended for offline work.

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 itself need a published license, and neither Cursor nor Devin Desktop publishes one, nor a list of supported model providers, local model support or GitHub stars. Both sell commercial plans instead, starting at $20/mo, and both offer an Enterprise plan through sales. Both do list a self-hosted or VPC deployment, but that is a vendor deployment option, not open source code you can fork. With the deciding facts missing on both sides, neither earns a recommendation here.

For shell-first developers, where the agent runs matters most. Both start from a VS Code-based desktop IDE, but Cursor lists twelve surfaces, including an Agents window, against three for Devin Desktop, so it reaches more places beyond the editor. The rest of the checklist is a match: both run terminal commands, offer background or cloud agents, support MCP and read project rules files, with Cursor reading AGENTS.md and.cursor/rules files and Devin Desktop preferring.devin/rules files. The wider surface list gives Cursor a narrow edge.

For developers who want to stay in VS Code or a fork, editor support matters most. Cursor works in Cursor's own editor, a VS Code fork, while Devin Desktop lists its own IDE plus six more editors, giving you more ways to keep your existing setup. Inside the editor the two are evenly matched: both make autonomous multi-file edits, offer checkpoints for rollback and index your codebase. Neither publishes how much usage the entry tier includes. The broader editor list tips it toward Devin Desktop.