News

Two Different Takes on Cursor/Copilot Vibe Coding Supremacy

• By David Ramel
• 05/05/2025

Since the AI coding assistant space kicked off with GitHub Copilot, which came early to Visual Studio Code, other alternatives have sprung up, with Cursor among the most popular.

Thanks to abilities such as deep codebase understanding and natural language refactoring, Cursor has risen in popularity among alternatives like Windsurf (formerly Codeium), Amazon Q, Replit's Ghostwriter,Tabnine and many more.

That's a lot to choose from, and two recent posts show how opinionated developers can come down on both sides of the Copilot-vs.-Cursor debate, offering up plenty of evidence to back up their decisions.

Cursor is developed by Anysphere, which dubbed it "the AI code editor." Characteristics of the editor -- which is actually based on a fork of VS Code as are some other alternatives -- include:

• Deep Codebase Understanding: Cursor can analyze and reference your entire project to answer questions or make code edits intelligently across multiple files.
• Natural Language Refactoring: Developers can modify code using plain English instructions, enabling fast and intuitive structural changes.
• Agent Mode: An AI agent proactively completes multi-step tasks with minimal input, acting more like a collaborator than a tool.
• Context-Aware Chat: The built-in chat interface understands the full scope of your project, allowing accurate explanations, suggestions, and debugging help.
• Terminal Command Generation: Cursor can translate plain-language commands into shell commands, streamlining command-line usage for developers.
• AI-Native Editor Experience: Unlike plugin-based tools, Cursor integrates AI deeply into the IDE itself, creating a unified, frictionless development environment.

Turning to those opinionated developers, two of them in the past week posted Cursor/Copilot comparisons and explained why one chose Cursor and one chose Copilot. On May 2, Marc Matterson published "Why I stopped Using Cursor and Reverted to VS Code," and three days later Fredrick Eghosa published "I tried Cursor vs VS Code for vibe coding; here's my review."

The comparison is really Copilot vs. Cursor, of course, as many other AI coding assistants can be used in VS Code besides the GitHub offering, and Eghosa gave Cursor a slight edge in a lengthy, extremely detailed comparison complete with the usual "it depends" hemming and hawing.

"Cursor AI is the way to go if you're new to coding and want an AI that feels like a friendly guide, Eghosa said. "It helps you learn, experiment, and vibe with your code without feeling lost.

"But if you're a bit more experienced or want a customizable, powerful editor with AI suggestions, VS Code with Copilot is a solid choice. It's fast, flexible, and trusted by millions (and me).

"Personally, Cursor AI made coding feel less like a chore and more like a creative activity. But both tools are great. So, try them out and see which one matches your vibe!"

Matterson, meanwhile, preferred Copilot to match his vibe, though he also used the "it depends" angle: "Firstly, I don't believe any text editor/IDE is better than any other. You should always make this judgment yourself based on trial-and-error and not finalize your decision based on what is most spoken about online."

But then, speaking from a data science point of view, he rendered his personal take: "I have been using VS Code for several weeks now since reverting from Cursor, and I have not regretted my decision. I believe Microsoft is making great progress with GitHub Copilot and has really closed the gap to all the new AI-assistant IDEs."

Matterson initially switched to Cursor for its support of multiple LLMs and its project-generating "Composer" feature, but later reverted to VS Code after GitHub Copilot added comparable LLM support, offered better Jupyter Notebook integration, and proved more cost-effective.

He said GitHub Copilot closed that initial gap by rapidly adding support for cutting-edge LLMs like Claude 3.7 and GPT-4.5, matching many of Cursor's once-exclusive features, and releasing updates at a fast pace -- sometimes daily -- thanks to Microsoft's greater resources and focus on making Copilot the leading AI coding assistant.

"As of today, there aren't many features that Cursor offers that are not also available using VS Code and GitHub Copilot," Matterson said in conclusion. "Microsoft has shown in the past 4 months that it is placing huge importance on making GitHub Copilot the best AI coding assistant on the market. While some improvements are still needed, they are moving at a rapid pace, closing the gap, and are in a position to lead the market by the end of 2025."

Eghosa, meanwhile, is a writer who knows how to code, and he detailed several direct hands-on comparisons he made, using what he called six simple vibe coding prompts:

• Hello World in Python: Cursor provided the code with an explanation; VS Code suggested the code instantly but without context.
• Simple HTML Landing Page: Cursor generated a complete, styled page with helpful comments; VS Code offered piece-by-piece suggestions requiring more manual assembly.
• Add-Two-Numbers Python Function: Cursor wrote and explained the function in detail, including usage; VS Code completed the function quickly but without explanatory context.
• JavaScript To-Do List App: Cursor created a working app with real-time functionality and code comments; VS Code offered snippets but required user assembly.
• Fixing a Typo in Python Code: Cursor detected and corrected the error with an explanation; VS Code did not catch the typo unless prompted.
• Explaining a Python Loop: Cursor broke the loop down in clear, beginner-friendly language; VS Code gave brief hints only when asked explicitly.

He also offered this feature-by-feature comparison:

Eghosa's key takeaways include:

• Unlike VS Code's file-focused AI, Cursor AI understands the whole project, enabling smarter multi-file edits and deeper contextual help.
• Cursor's built-in AI chat and project-wide understanding made me feel supported and guided, while VS Code's flexibility and extensions gave me total control but less hand-holding.
• VS Code was quick to install and familiar, making it easy to start coding. Cursor required more resources and a bit of adjustment but rewarded me with richer AI assistance.
• Cursor AI provided detailed explanations and proactive suggestions, which is perfect for beginners. VS Code's Copilot offered fast inline completions, which is ideal for users who know what they want.
• VS Code ran lighter and faster on my device, while Cursor's AI features sometimes caused slight slowdowns but delivered more context-aware help.
• Cursor AI helped me get into a creative flow with less frustration, making coding feel like a conversation. VS Code was more of a traditional editor with AI support, which is great for experienced users.
• Beginners and those wanting an interactive AI assistant will love Cursor. Developers who want a customizable, stable environment with AI suggestions will prefer VS Code.

"Testing Cursor AI and VS Code for vibe coding was an eye-opening experience," Eghosa said in his wrap-up. "As a writer who doesn't code professionally, I was amazed at how much AI can simplify the process and make coding feel approachable and even fun. Cursor's conversational AI helped me understand what I was doing, while VS Code's Copilot gave me quick, reliable suggestions.

"Vibe coding is about finding your flow and letting AI handle the technical details so you can focus on your ideas. Whether you pick Cursor AI or VS Code, the key is to experiment, stay curious, and enjoy the ride."