Cursor vs Claude Code: I Used Both for 30 Days

Last updated: February 2026

Two AI coding tools. Completely different philosophies. One lives in your editor. The other lives in your terminal. Both claim to make you a 10x developer.

I used Cursor and Claude Code as my primary coding tools for 30 days on the same projects. No cherry-picking. No toy demos. Real work — a Next.js SaaS app, a Python data pipeline, and a Go microservice.

Here’s what actually happened.

The TL;DR

Cursor is better if you want AI seamlessly woven into your existing coding workflow. It feels like a supercharged VS Code.

Claude Code is better if you want an AI that can independently tackle complex, multi-file tasks. It feels like pair programming with a senior developer.

Different tools for different moments. But if I could only keep one? Keep reading.

How They Work (The Key Difference)

Cursor is a fork of VS Code with AI baked in. You code normally — write, edit, navigate — and AI assists you inline. Tab completion predicts your next move. Cmd+K lets you edit code with natural language. Composer mode handles multi-file changes.

Claude Code is a terminal agent. You describe what you want, and it goes to work — reading files, writing code, running commands, creating commits. You review the results. It’s less “assistant” and more “autonomous colleague.”

This isn’t a minor UX difference. It fundamentally changes how you interact with AI while coding.

Speed: Writing New Code

For greenfield code — new features, new files, starting from scratch — Cursor wins.

The tab completions are addictive. You start typing a function, and Cursor predicts not just the current line but the entire logical block. Accept, accept, accept. It’s like the AI read your mind.

Claude Code can write new code too, but there’s more friction. You describe what you want, wait for it to generate, review the output. For small tasks, that overhead adds up.

Verdict: Cursor for writing new code quickly.

Complex Refactors: Changing Existing Code

For refactoring — renaming patterns across files, migrating APIs, restructuring modules — Claude Code wins decisively.

I asked both tools to migrate a Next.js app from the Pages Router to the App Router. Cursor’s Composer made a decent attempt but lost track of context after 8-10 files. I had to intervene multiple times.

Claude Code handled it in one shot. It read the entire project structure, understood the routing patterns, migrated components, updated imports, and even fixed the middleware. Then it ran the build to verify nothing broke.

For anything touching more than 5 files, Claude Code’s ability to autonomously navigate and understand a codebase is unmatched.

Verdict: Claude Code for complex, multi-file changes.

Debugging

Tie, but for different reasons.

Cursor is great for inline debugging — hover over an error, ask “why is this failing,” get an immediate explanation with a fix. Fast feedback loop.

Claude Code is better for deep debugging — “the API returns 500 intermittently in production, here are the logs, figure out why.” It’ll dig through your code, trace the logic, check error handling, and often find the root cause buried three files deep.

Verdict: Draw. Use Cursor for quick fixes, Claude Code for mystery bugs.

Learning Curve

Cursor: Almost zero. If you use VS Code, you already know 80% of it. The AI features reveal themselves naturally as you code.

Claude Code: Moderate. You need to be comfortable in the terminal. You need to learn how to write good prompts (specific, with context). The payoff is huge, but there’s a ramp-up period.

Verdict: Cursor for getting started quickly.

Cost

Cursor Pro: $20/month. Includes 500 “fast” requests (GPT-4/Claude), unlimited slow requests.

Claude Code: Requires a Claude Pro ($20/month) or API access. API costs vary — a heavy day of coding might cost $5-15 in tokens. Light usage is $1-3/day.

In practice, Claude Code costs more if you use it heavily. But the ROI on complex tasks can be enormous — a refactor that saves you 4 hours of manual work is worth $15 in API costs.

Verdict: Cursor for predictable pricing. Claude Code for ROI on complex work.

The Dealbreakers

Cursor’s weakness: It struggles with large-scale changes. The context window, while improving, still can’t hold an entire large project in its head. For big refactors, you’ll hit walls.

Claude Code’s weakness: It’s overkill for simple tasks. If you just need to write a quick function or fix a typo, firing up Claude Code feels like driving a truck to the grocery store.

My Setup (What I Actually Use)

After 30 days, I didn’t pick one. I use both:

  • Cursor for 70% of my coding — daily writing, small edits, quick fixes, exploring unfamiliar code
  • Claude Code for 30% — complex refactors, debugging hard problems, writing tests for existing code, setting up new projects

This isn’t a cop-out. They genuinely complement each other. Cursor is your everyday driver. Claude Code is the specialist you call in for the hard stuff.

If You Can Only Pick One

Pick Cursor if:

  • You want minimal disruption to your current workflow
  • Most of your work is writing new code or making small changes
  • You prefer visual/GUI tools over terminal
  • Predictable monthly cost matters to you

Pick Claude Code if:

  • You work on large, complex codebases
  • You frequently do multi-file refactors or migrations
  • You’re comfortable in the terminal
  • You value raw capability over convenience

My recommendation for most developers: Start with Cursor. It’s easier to adopt and immediately useful. Add Claude Code later when you hit tasks that Cursor can’t handle well.

For senior developers on complex projects: Start with Claude Code. The learning curve is worth it. Add Cursor for daily comfort.

Both tools offer free tiers or trials. Links below are affiliate links — I earn a commission if you sign up, at no extra cost to you.

Have a question about either tool? Drop a comment below or reach out on Twitter.