The future of Cursor is becoming claude code?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/annatong/2026/03/05/cursor-goes-to-war-for-ai-coding-dominance/

Date: March 5th, 2026

tl;dr: The priority is making a model that can compete with claude code’s Opus without human interaction, instead of making an editor for humans to code along with AI.

Cursor was built on a different premise… a collaborative editor where humans and AI refined code together.

But if the AI doesn’t need a human collaborator, why bother with the editor? If writing and editing code line by line was no longer central to a programmer’s workflow, Cursor’s central product thesis was suddenly in question.

At the all-hands, Cursor leadership warned that the months ahead would be turbulent ones. Projects might be scrapped, priorities shifted. The company’s new mandate was labeled “P0 #1”—priority zero: “Build the best coding model.”

Not the best wrapper. The best model. Call it a vibe shift. Inside Cursor, it felt like a reckoning.

Cursor’s leadership knows that the future of software development does not involve writing lines of code.

And they started prioritizing contracts with large enterprises, which can be more stable than consumer subscriptions.

Cost remains an ever present challenge. Cursor’s larger rivals are willing to subsidize aggressively**.** According to a person familiar with the company’s internal analysis, Cursor estimated last year that a $200-per-month Claude Code subscription could use up to $2,000 in compute, suggesting significant subsidization by Anthropic. Today, that subsidization appears to be even more aggressive, with that $200 plan able to consume about $5,000 in compute, according to a different person who has seen analyses on the company’s compute spend patterns.

Cursor also subsidizes some users, though it appears it doesn’t do so as much as Anthropic. Cursor has negative margins for consumer subscriptions, but its business plans operate on positive margins

November last year, only 13.6% of Cursor’s annualized revenue came from enterprise contracts, according to documents seen by Forbes. Today, about 60% of Cursor’s revenue comes from businesses, according to a person familiar with Cursor, though Forbes couldn’t determine what portion of that is enterprise plans.

The sales team has closed contracts with large customers, including Meta and Nvidia, according to people familiar with its plans.

Now, Cursor is trying to figure out the best way to build a tool that could manage hundreds of agents working together simultaneously, something they internally call “grind mode.”

1 Like

I have been a hardcore cursor supporter, despite the bumps along the way, but if “a collaborative editor where humans and AI refined code together” is no longer their product (their words), then I might as well just get used to using Claude Code and accepting changes through git. Especially if they say that claude code subscriptions are getting a 25x subsidization ($200 → $5000). It’s worth giving people a heads up of where Cursor is going (and not going).

1 Like

This is a good points. A roadmap would be a great addition. However things in the AI world move fast and I assume it is impossible to predict.
However I absolutely agree. You mention composer models and from my perspective they are great for the default subagents → they are fast and cheap-ish so exploring codebase is a decent use case.
On the other hand, in terms of intelligence, composer models are uncomparable to big labs’ models. Just a thought of composer being close to opus is, in my opinion, a marketing stunt for those who do not actually read the code they generate.