Cursor vs Kiro

Both start at the same $20/mo, so price does not separate them for newcomers. The difference is predictability: Kiro publishes 1,000 credits a month on Kiro Pro, while Cursor does not publish an entry allowance. Kiro's free plan is also concrete at 50 credits a month, while Cursor's Hobby plan offers only limited Agent requests and access to Composer. Both include checkpoints and rollback, so an easy undo is covered either way. A clearly sized allowance and free tier give Kiro the edge for a predictable bill.

Cursor covers more of an enterprise security review. On training, Cursor states that with Privacy Mode on, code is not used for training, while Kiro's policy for its free tier and individual subscribers is conditional. Cursor offers a self-hostedself-host - Run the software on your own servers instead of the vendor’s cloud. or VPC deployment and a zero data retention option; Kiro offers neither. Both provide SSO, with Cursor's SAML and OIDC SSO starting on Teams at $40/user/mo, and both have admin audit logs. Cursor also lists SOC 2, which Kiro does not publish.

This one is close. Kiro's free plan is more concrete at 50 credits a month, while Cursor's Hobby plan offers limited Agent requests and access to Composer without a published number. The swing factor is bringing your own key: Cursor supports it, so you can keep working on your own API account, while Kiro does not (a vendor claim). Both paid plans start at $20/mo, and Kiro states it does not run local models while Cursor does not publish either way. Own-key flexibility tips it to Cursor.

Neither tool confirms local model support, which is what matters most here. Kiro states it does not run local models (a vendor claim), while Cursor publishes nothing either way. Neither publishes its supported providers or its license. The remaining difference is bringing your own API key: Cursor supports it, Kiro does not. That gives Cursor slightly more control over which models it calls, though buyers who need fully offline work should verify local support directly before choosing.

Neither Cursor nor Kiro publishes a license, supported model providers, GitHub stars or a separate hosted option, so the facts that decide an open-source choice are missing for both. Kiro states it does not run local models, and Cursor does not publish local model support at all, which gives neither an edge. Both are offered as products with their own editors rather than as code you can read or fork. Teams that need source access should look elsewhere.

Where the agent runs matters most for shell users, and Kiro names a CLI among its surfaces alongside its IDE, web app and mobile preview. Cursor's surfaces lead with its desktop IDE, a VS Code fork, and an Agents window, plus ten more. Both run terminal commands, both offer background agents and MCP support, and both read project rules, with Cursor using AGENTS.md and.cursor/rules files and Kiro using steering files. Kiro's explicit CLI surface gives it the edge.

Cursor is the natural pick for VS Code users: its desktop IDE is a VS Code fork, while Kiro runs in its own Kiro IDE or in ACP-compatible editors through its CLI. Both make autonomous multi-file edits and both offer checkpoints and rollback for undoing mistakes. Cursor adds codebase indexing, which Kiro does not publish. Kiro does publish 1,000 credits a month on Kiro Pro, a clearer entry allowance, but staying in a familiar editor matters most here.