Claude Code vs Cursor.
Two different bets on what AI-assisted development looks like. Here's how we use both, what each one is actually good at, and how to think about the choice.
Both Claude Code and Cursor are genuinely useful. I use both. I actually run them together — Claude Code inside the Cursor terminal. They’re not a choice; they’re a stack.
My thoughts on Cursor
The tab completion is genuinely good. It sits in the background and handles the small stuff — fill in a function body, complete a variable name, suggest the next line — without breaking flow.
My thoughts on Claude Code
Claude Code is where things get interesting. You give it a goal, not a location — and it figures out where to go. It reads the relevant files, makes the changes, checks the result. The whole flow is agentic: you describe what you want done, it does the work.
The multi-step reasoning is what separates it. Tasks that would require me to open five files, track state across all of them, and make a chain of coordinated edits — Claude Code handles that in a single prompt.
How I actually use both
The actual setup: I run Claude Code inside the Cursor terminal. They’re not alternatives — they’re layered.
Claude Code handles everything goal-level:
- Multi-file changes where the approach needs figuring out before any writing starts
- Features that span multiple services or touch several moving parts
- Refactors that would otherwise take twenty minutes of manual coordination
- Anything where describing what I want done is faster than driving how
Cursor fills the gaps:
- Tab completions — fast, in-context suggestions as I type
- Rate limit fallback — when Claude Code hits its limit mid-session, Cursor’s AI picks up
- Quick targeted edits where I already know exactly what to change
The split isn’t really about task complexity. It’s about who’s driving. Claude Code is driving when I describe a goal and let it execute. Cursor is driving when I’m typing and want smart suggestions alongside me.