GoonWindsurf vs Cursor: A comprehensive comparison of AI code editors
In the rapidly evolving landscape of AI-powered development tools, code editors like Windsurf and Cursor are taking center stage. These tools, both forks of Visual Studio Code (VS Code), offer a range of advanced capabilities, including AI code assistance and agentic functionality. But which one truly stands out? This article provides an in-depth comparison of Windsurf and Cursor using the Volo Score, a methodology designed to evaluate AI tools based on critical criteria.
Introducing the volo score
Evaluating AI tools requires a structured approach, and the Volo Score is designed for precisely that purpose. It establishes benchmarks for assessing AI code editors against an "ideal" development solution—one that seamlessly generates, deploys, and optimizes software. While no tool currently matches such a high standard, the Volo Score provides a valuable framework for comparison. If you're curious about the intricacies of the Volo Score, additional resources linked in this article explain its methodology.
Now, let's explore how Windsurf and Cursor perform across ten key evaluation criteria.
Context awareness: understanding your intent
Context awareness evaluates how effectively an AI code editor understands user intent, identifies relevant files, and performs modifications. Cursor and Windsurf tackle this in unique ways.
Cursor's performance
Cursor allows users to tag specific files to give it the necessary context for modifications. Additionally, it enables users to make broad requests, searching the entire codebase for relevant files. However, while effective in most cases, this feature can sometimes falter, either misidentifying files or formatting responses incorrectly. Cursor also risks context loss, leading to "hallucinations" if relevant files aren't tagged explicitly.
Interestingly, Cursor offers an advantage over Windsurf by allowing users to upload documentation or provide URLs. This additional context integration boosts its capabilities for developers working with external resources. Overall, Cursor scores 7/10 for context awareness.
Windsurf's perspective
Windsurf follows a similar approach by allowing file tagging. However, it adds an automated retrieval capability that scans files, extracts relevant snippets, and avoids dumping irrelevant sections into the context. This improves accuracy when generating results. Additionally, Windsurf performs better in identifying relevant files across the codebase, eliminating the need for manual tagging in some cases.
Although it lacks Cursor's documentation-uploading functionality, Windsurf compensates with its automated file analysis, tying Cursor with a 7/10 score.
See how context awareness works for Cursor and Windsurf at 2 seconds
Output quality: the detail in generated code
Output quality measures how well these tools generate precise, functional code and support large-scale operations. Here’s how the two compare.
Cursor's strengths
Cursor leverages its proprietary autocomplete model, delivering impressive output quality during typical operations. It handles larger files reasonably well and allows "tab suggestions" to pinpoint code sections for modification. However, issues arise when the context is too lengthy, leading to missed nuances. While Cursor produces top-tier results, occasional errors with novel programming tasks limit its potential slightly. Cursor earns a solid 7/10 for output quality.
Windsurf's struggles
Windsurf uses the Claude Sonnet 3.5 model, providing similar functionality to Cursor but often falling short on fine-tuned autocomplete. The generated code sometimes lacks the finesse found in Cursor’s outputs, possibly due to differences in prompt engineering. While it shows potential for improvement, Windsurf currently receives a slightly lower score of 5/10 for output quality.
Dive into quality evaluation at 77 seconds
Autonomy: where windsurf shines
Autonomy evaluates how independently a tool can execute tasks and resolve associated challenges.
Cursor’s rudimentary approach
Cursor lacks advanced autonomy, depending on user guidance for long-form outputs. While it searches codebases and appends additional responses when necessary, its overall agentic capabilities are sparse. Cursor receives 2/10 for autonomy.
Windsurf's agentic edge
Windsurf boasts advanced agentic capabilities, analyzing files, iterating code implementations, and managing dependencies with minimal intervention. While not fully autonomous, it represents a significant step forward, warranting a score of 6/10.
Iteration size and speed
Iteration size reflects a tool's ability to manage large-scale modifications, while iteration speed evaluates response times.
Both tools excel in handling feature-level abstractions, modifying multiple files effectively while avoiding overwhelming complexity. As such, they share a 7/10 score for iteration size.
However, Cursor’s speedier response times—enabled by its streamlined context analysis—gives it a slight advantage, scoring 6/10 for iteration speed compared to Windsurf’s 5/10.
Capabilities and flexibility
Capabilities factor in diverse features, such as model versatility and documentation referencing.
Cursor’s robust lineup
Cursor’s competitive advantage lies in uploading documentation, configuring AI behavior with Cursor Rules, and accepting user-supplied API keys for extended flexibility. Scoring 6/10, Cursor’s features solidify its reputation as a powerhouse tool.
Windsurf’s nascency
While Windsurf includes unique navigation capabilities and terminal integration, its feature set is narrower, particularly in areas like documentation referencing. It earns 4/10 overall.
Explore tool capabilities using the Volo Score at 1245 seconds
User experience: ease of use and reliability
A positive developer experience requires intuitive design and reliable performance.
Windsurf: A slightly easier start
Windsurf simplifies onboarding with user-friendly chats and automated commands embedded in its Cascade sidebar. However, frequent errors, undo bugs, and occasional inconsistencies mar reliability, leading to scores of 6/10 (ease of use) and 5/10 (reliability).
Cursor: Reliable yet intricate
Cursor provides dependable operations with robust inline suggestions and dependable AI navigation. While its interface may feel overwhelming for beginners, it ensures stability, scoring 5/10 (ease of use) and 8/10 (reliability).
How reliable is Windsurf? See at 1472 seconds
How Cursor fares on performance—watch at 1472 seconds!
Value for pricing
Assessing value focuses on cost-effectiveness relative to features and performance.
Cursor: Premium features at $20/month
Cursor’s paid plans open access to unlimited AI generations for as little as $20/month. Premium features include enhanced output quality, fast response times, and extended customization. Its competitive price-tag aligns with its high functionality, earning 8/10.
Windsurf: Affordable entry at $10/month
Windsurf’s lower price initially appeals to budget-conscious developers, though limitations and occasional frustrations due to unclear subscription terms reduce its consistency. Like Cursor, it scores 8/10 for value.
Final verdict: winds of change?
Based on the Volo Score, Cursor slightly edges Windsurf with 63/100 against 59/100. While Cursor’s reliability and ecosystem breadth shine, Windsurf’s innovative agentic capabilities and affordability make it a formidable competitor. Both tools suit distinct use cases, with experienced developers likely preferring Cursor's dependability and newcomers favoring Windsurf’s simplicity.
For further insights and hands-on tutorials, check out the accompanying video.
Whether Cursor or Windsurf suits your needs, the continued evolution of AI editors promises even more revolutionary tools for developers in 2024 and beyond.
