What makes cursor better to use than Claude code? Does it know your codebase better?
I have only seen videos of Claude Code, but these are some of the big differences that Cursor has over Claude that I noticed:
- integrates into the IDE intimately
- has (unlimited) tab completions
- automatically creates restore checkpoints made with each request
- allows inline requests
- shows diffs and allows to manually choose which changes to accept
- Context and Awareness
- automatically gathers context from open tabs and looks through your project folder
- monitors clipboard/selection and which files and specific sections of code you are just simply looking at, let alone interacting with
- allows copying a section of code into the request to give it very clear context (code section and file)
- allows dragging tabs, files, sections of code, and pasting screenshots all into the request context
- duplicates a chat to create a sort of branch that you can return to
- easily switch between wide range of models (free, light, powerful)
It seems that Cursor is better for those that still need/want to program their code because Cursor has more tools for helping you while you program. Most those that go to Claude Code have said they don’t need to really program at all, which means their project is of a type that can be 100% produce by AI, which is not where everyone is at.
4 Likes
As a disclaimer, I haven’t used claude code myself but have spent a decent amount of time reading about it and watching colleagues use it, so I have a decent understanding of its capabilities. I’ve been experimenting with Cursor since January, and have been using it as my full-time code editor for full-stack development since May.
For me, these are Cursor’s killer features:
-
Built-in semantic search. Cursor’s codebase indexing and search system has gotten really good. Given a decent explanation of a problem, new AI models are able to consistently pull in the exact context I’m looking for without using
grep(which can miss important info). This generally means the model’s output quality and accuracy is improved (i.e. it updates only what I want to be updated, at the exact locations I expect the updates to occur). Huge time and token saver. -
Like @MidnightOak said, Cursor supplements your existing editor workflow with AI tools instead of replacing the code writing workflow entirely. With claude code, what happens if you need to make a set of edits or fixes on your own? You fall back to an editor. I’d rather live in the editor, with the option to use AI tools when I desire. This one is mostly personal preference though. Maybe using claude code from the editor’s terminal is another option? I haven’t tried that. I just know that I still prefer writing plenty of code by hand, because AI can’t solve every problem well, and I think the code it generates is still poor quality in many cases.
-
Pretty good autocomplete. Again, I still prefer writing a decent amount of code by hand for reasons explained in the bullet above. Cursor’s Tab/Autocomplete system generally does a pretty good job of correctly predicting what edit I want to make next. You can toggle this feature on/off as well - I bound the toggle to
Ctrl Shift ,because it doesn’t always do as well for logic-heavy code. -
First-class support for models from different providers. Claude sonnet and GPT-5 have their own strengths and weaknesses. Being able to maintain the same workflow while switching between the two models is great.
-
Ability to specify granular context instead of whole files. I can tell the LLM to reference a specific function or variable, which means it uses less context AND the context is exactly as relevant as I need it to be. I can do this with
@rules or by selecting code from an editor window I already have open.
Claude code doesn’t have any of these features as far as I’m aware.
Writing all that made me realize I like Cursor because I still feel in control of my workflow. I have the option to use AI tools to supplement my existing code writing workflow as much or as little as I want; I’m not forced to relinquish control to an AI system entirely. Cursor allows me to switch between handwriting code and having an AI do work without much friction. That’s important, because it allows me to properly balance efficiency and quality (i.e. I can allocate AI resources only to tasks I know it can accomplish faster than me and with similar output quality).
Also, with an editor I can write code while offline. (Huge Chad energy)
2 Likes
well, I want to say that though I not use Cursor for months, it attracts me back by the collaoration of voice Wispr.
Hopefully, someone could give me some advice here, I want vibe coding most: Coming Back to Cursor After Trying Alternatives – Is Ultra + Full Setup Worth It? - Discussions - Cursor - Community Forum
At this stage I would compare Claude Code with Cursor CLI instead of Cursor IDE. The Cursor IDE is on another level ser 
2 Likes
Cursor offers a more stable IDE and features that let the AI write code more effectively.
Claude Code has UI wrappers like Roo Code built around it, but they’re a bit less refined and less stable.
I used Claude Code + Roo Code with the $200 plan, coding around 10 hours a day. It worked well — the limits are at least $200 every 5 hours, which is incredibly generous. But it felt inconvenient and less efficient. With Sonnet 4.5 this might change, but for now, I’m sticking with Cursor.
1 Like
“I heard of other tools, but Cursor is def better” 
TabTab is the only thing RN. Some funky tooling, but the raw quality is not there.
Great explanation. Thanks for backing up your claims with clear reasoning. Very productive.
Best explanation 
