Coding · Head-to-head

Cursor vs Cody

Cursor (freemium, AI Score 9.2/10) vs Cody (paid, AI Score 6.4/10). Side-by-side pricing, features, pros and cons, and which to pick.

The verdict

Pick Cursor if…

Try Cursor →

Pick Cody if…

→your primary use case is platform and developer-experience teams at large organisations already running sourcegraph, who need repo-wide ai answers under their own permission model and cloud-hosted inference.

Try Cody →

Spec	Cursor	Cody
Category	Coding	Coding
Pricing model	freemium	paid
Headline pricing	Free Hobby + Individual $20/mo + Teams $40/user/mo + Enterprise custom	Enterprise only — check website for current pricing
Free tier	Free Hobby plan, no credit card required, with limited Agent requests and access to the Composer model.	—
AI Score	9.2/10	6.4/10
Best for	Professional developers who want an IDE-native agent that can also run in the cloud and be steered from a phone, and engineering teams that need admin control over which model handles which request.	Platform and developer-experience teams at large organisations already running Sourcegraph, who need repo-wide AI answers under their own permission model and cloud-hosted inference.
Editor's pick	✓ Yes	—
Use cases	development agents	development
Date added	2025-04-01	2026-05-01

Coding · freemium

✓Multi-file editing across an indexed codebase is still the category benchmark, handling imports and cross-file references without hand-holding
✓Agents run in the editor, in the cloud, or from an iOS app, so a long job does not need your laptop awake
✓Composer is a first-party agentic model, so Cursor is not purely a reseller of other labs' tokens
✓Cursor Router gives admins one lever on org-wide model spend plus control over which models are reachable, which matters for approved-model and data-residency rules
✓The free Hobby tier includes Composer access rather than gating the in-house model behind a card

×Pro+ and Ultra appear on the pricing page with 3x and 20x limit multipliers but no published price, so real cost above $20/mo is opaque until you are inside the product
×Usage-based limits replaced the old fixed request quotas, making monthly spend harder to predict than a flat seat fee
×Cursor Router is Teams and Enterprise only, so solo developers get none of the routing savings, and the 60% figure is Cursor's own A/B with Cost mode's quality tradeoff undocumented
×SpaceX's $60B acquisition of Anysphere leaves the product's independence and long-term branding unsettled

Coding · paid

✓Context comes from a real code-search index rather than a bolted-on vector store, so cross-repository answers cite actual definitions and references
✓Model routing through Amazon Bedrock or Azure OpenAI keeps inference inside your own cloud account — a hard requirement in regulated environments
✓Inherits Sourcegraph repository permissions, so it cannot surface code a user isn't cleared to see
✓Self-hosted and air-gapped deployment options that most AI coding assistants simply do not offer
✓Adds AI on top of an installation many large engineering orgs already run, rather than introducing a new vendor

×The self-serve Free and Pro tiers were retired in 2025 — individual developers can no longer buy this, which is a major change from earlier reviews
×Sourcegraph's agentic coding investment moved to Amp, so Cody no longer receives the company's headline feature work
×No autonomous multi-file agent loop comparable to Cursor, Claude Code, or Sourcegraph's own Amp
×Requires a Sourcegraph deployment and index before it delivers its one differentiator — a heavy prerequisite if you aren't already a customer

Updated 2026-08-10. Spec data sourced from official product pages and tracked in our public directory at /tools.