Agentic AI Comparison:
Continue vs Cursor
vs
Introduction
Cursor and Continue are two leading AI coding assistants designed to accelerate software development. Cursor offers a comprehensive AI-powered IDE experience, while Continue provides a highly flexible, open-source extension for VS Code. This comparison report evaluates both agents across five key metrics: autonomy, ease of use, flexibility, cost, and popularity.
Overview
Cursor
Cursor (cursor.com) is an AI-centric code editor crafted to enhance productivity through advanced real-time coding support, smart autocompletion, and deep codebase understanding. Built on VS Code, Cursor integrates AI features such as natural language editing, multi-model support, and a composer for generating entire applications. It is tailored for rapid development and robust debugging, making it especially attractive to developers seeking an all-in-one environment that leverages modern AI advancements.
Continue
Continue (continue.dev) is an open-source AI assistant available as a VS Code extension. It provides code autocompletion, answers about codebases, and allows users to connect any AI model, such as GPT or Claude. Continue excels in customizability, control, and seamless integration into existing developer workflows. Its open-source nature and compatibility with any model make it highly appealing for teams or individuals who prioritize adaptability and cost efficiency.
Metrics Comparison
autonomy
Continue: 7
Continue is highly capable for code autocompletion and context-based assistance, but its autonomous capabilities are somewhat less mature than Cursor, especially when it comes to handling complex, multi-step coding tasks independently.
Cursor: 9
Cursor offers high autonomy with real-time AI-powered suggestions, complex context awareness, and advanced code generation features that assist with entire sections or full applications. Its built-in composer and agent mode can drive feature development with minimal manual intervention.
Cursor leads in autonomy due to its more advanced agent features and real-time intervention, making it better suited for end-to-end coding workflows with minimal input.
ease of use
Continue: 9
Continue is a lightweight VS Code extension, so it fits seamlessly into existing workflows. Its straightforward installation, easy model integration, and no need for switching editors lower the barrier for adoption, especially for current VS Code users.
Cursor: 8
Cursor's integration as a standalone IDE with an intuitive interface and familiar VS Code foundations makes it user-friendly. It offers tools and workflows recognizable to most developers, though some advanced features may require a short learning curve.
Continue scores slightly higher for ease of use as it requires no new IDE or workflow changes, whereas Cursor introduces a dedicated environment, albeit built on familiar tooling.
flexibility
Continue: 10
Continue is highly flexible: open source, model-agnostic, and allows deep customization. Teams can connect any LLM and tailor experiences, making it ideal for experimentation, self-hosting, or specialized requirements.
Cursor: 7
Cursor supports extensions and themes and can function with multiple underlying AI models, but is primarily designed around its AI-first IDE. Flexibility is good, especially for users willing to embrace its ecosystem, but less so for those tied to other editors.
Continue decisively leads in flexibility due to its open-source nature, model independence, and broad integration options.
cost
Continue: 10
Continue is entirely open source and free to use, with no licensing fees. Users only incur costs if they opt for paid APIs from external models (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic), but can also deploy their own models to avoid these entirely.
Cursor: 6
Cursor offers a free tier but many advanced features require paid plans. While competitively priced for its feature set, it is not fully free for most extended use cases.
Continue is the clear winner on cost, being fully free and open source, whereas Cursor's most powerful features require payment.
popularity
Continue: 7
Continue is popular in open-source and customization-focused communities, but its user base is somewhat more niche compared to more polished or commercially promoted tools like Cursor.
Cursor: 8
Cursor has quickly gained traction as a top AI-first IDE, frequently mentioned among leading AI coding assistants, and cited by reviewers as a preferred solution for rapid, context-aware development.
Cursor enjoys broader mainstream popularity, while Continue is best known among developers seeking open-source and highly customizable solutions.
Conclusions
Cursor and Continue both offer robust, AI-driven coding experiences, catering to different priorities. Cursor stands out for its autonomy and polished, full-featured IDE, making it the stronger option for those wanting end-to-end AI coding support in a dedicated environment. Continue excels in flexibility, cost, and ease of integration, serving developers who value open-source licensing, model independence, and seamless extension to existing workflows. Developers choosing between the two should weigh the importance of autonomy and polish (Cursor) against flexibility and cost-efficiency (Continue).