If you're comparing Claude Code vs Cursor, you're choosing between two fundamentally different approaches to AI-assisted development: a terminal-native agent that reasons autonomously versus a visual IDE with AI deeply integrated.
Both tools can use Claude models. The difference is how they give AI access to your codebase—and how much autonomy you're willing to grant.
Claude Code: Terminal-First Agentic Coding
Claude Code runs entirely in your terminal. You describe what you want, and it figures out which files to read, which commands to run, and how to verify the changes worked. It's agentic by default—Claude doesn't just suggest code, it executes.
Key strengths:
Deep autonomy: Claude Code can spin up subagents, build context across your entire codebase, and work through multi-step tasks without hand-holding
Token efficiency: Reports suggest Claude Code uses significantly fewer tokens than Cursor for equivalent tasks—5x fewer in some benchmarks
Terminal-native: Fits into existing CLI workflows, scripts, and CI/CD pipelines
Memory across sessions: Remembers preferences, style guidelines, and common patterns
The tradeoff: you need comfort with terminal workflows. There's no GUI for browsing suggestions or approving changes visually. You're supervising an agent, not clicking through diffs.
Cursor: AI-Native IDE
Cursor is a fork of VS Code rebuilt around AI. It combines code completion, chat, and agentic capabilities in a familiar editor interface. You see changes as they happen, approve diffs visually, and maintain tighter control over what gets modified.
Key strengths:
Visual feedback: Watch AI edits in real-time, approve or reject changes in context
Faster onboarding: Feels like VS Code with superpowers—minimal learning curve
Multi-model support: Switch between Claude, GPT, and Gemini as needed
Speed for prototyping: Great for rapid iteration when you want to stay in flow
The tradeoff: Cursor's AI operates within the IDE paradigm. It's powerful for "vibe coding"—quickly building features while the AI assists—but may require more back-and-forth for complex refactors compared to Claude Code's autonomous approach.
When to Use Each
Choose Claude Code when:
You're comfortable in the terminal and prefer CLI workflows
You need autonomous multi-file refactors or complex debugging
Token cost matters—Claude Code is more efficient at scale
You want the AI to figure out the approach, not just execute your steps
Choose Cursor when:
You prefer visual diff review before changes land
You're prototyping rapidly and want tight feedback loops
Your team standardizes on a specific IDE
You want to switch between multiple AI providers easily
The Runtime Question
Both Claude Code and Cursor are local tools—they augment your editor or terminal but run on your machine. If you want AI with persistent access to a server, file system, and running services, you're looking at a different category entirely.
Zo Computer takes the runtime approach: instead of augmenting your local editor, you get a cloud server where AI has full context of your workspace and can work asynchronously—reading files, running commands, and deploying services without you watching.
For developers who want AI to work for them rather than with them in real-time, the runtime model unlocks capabilities that neither IDE extensions nor CLI tools can match. See the best AI coding assistant comparison for how these tools fit together.
Bottom Line
Claude Code wins on autonomy and efficiency. Cursor wins on visual control and approachability. Many developers use both—Cursor to get started quickly, Claude Code for deep refactors and debugging.
The real question isn't which tool is better. It's whether you want AI to assist your coding session or own parts of your development workflow entirely.