Cursor, the AI-powered code editor valued at $30 billion USD, is facing increasing scrutiny from developers as competitors like Claude Code and other AI coding tools gain traction. While the company continues to roll out new features including autocomplete for prompts, hooks for customization, and team rules, community discussions reveal growing concerns about pricing, performance, and the platform's long-term competitive position.
 |
|---|
| Configuration options in an AI-powered code editor, reflecting the new features discussed by Cursor |
Rising Costs Drive Users Away
One of the most significant issues plaguing Cursor users is the escalating cost of the service. Many developers report spending between $300-2000 USD monthly, with some finding their included credits exhausted within just 1-2 weeks. The pricing structure has become particularly contentious as users struggle to track their usage effectively, with the dashboard providing unclear information about remaining credits versus on-demand charges.
The cost concerns are compounded by performance issues, including response delays that can last up to a minute and inconsistent service quality. These problems are pushing users toward alternatives like Claude Code, which offers similar functionality through command-line interfaces that many developers find more intuitive and reliable.
Competition Intensifies from Multiple Fronts
The competitive landscape has shifted dramatically as major AI providers launch their own coding tools. Claude Code has emerged as a particularly strong competitor, offering direct access to Anthropic's models through both CLI and IDE extensions. GitHub Copilot has also improved significantly, while newer entrants like Kilo Code are gaining attention for their orchestrator modes that handle complex tasks with minimal user intervention.
I tried Claude Code once and half an hour later it printed $10 cost. I thought I was using the pro subscription, not the API. This makes using CC dangerous, so I am avoiding it.
The rise of native AI integrations in established IDEs like VSCode and JetBrains products has further eroded Cursor's unique positioning. These platforms now offer similar AI capabilities without requiring users to switch their entire development environment.
Questioning the Technology Moat
Perhaps most concerning for Cursor is the growing sentiment that the company lacks a sustainable technological advantage. Critics argue that as a wrapper around existing AI models, Cursor faces an uphill battle against providers who control the underlying technology. OpenAI and Anthropic are increasingly optimizing their models for CLI-driven development workflows, potentially making third-party integrations less effective.
The company's $30 billion USD valuation—roughly half of Anthropic's—has drawn particular skepticism from the developer community. Many question what proprietary technology justifies such a high valuation when competitors can replicate most features relatively easily.
The Path Forward
Despite these challenges, Cursor maintains loyal users who appreciate features like state management for AI edits, multi-model access, and deep IDE integration. The company continues to innovate with features like shareable prompt deeplinks and improved agent monitoring. However, the window for establishing a defensible market position may be narrowing as the AI coding landscape becomes increasingly commoditized.
The ultimate test for Cursor will be whether it can differentiate itself beyond being a well-designed interface for AI models, particularly as those models become more accessible through native tools and competitive pricing structures continue to evolve.
Reference: Agent Autocomplete, Hooks, and Team Rules