If you're comparing Cline vs Cursor, you're choosing between two fundamentally different approaches to AI-assisted development: an open-source extension that runs inside your existing editor versus a dedicated AI-native IDE.
Both tools help you write, refactor, and debug code with AI. But they make very different tradeoffs around control, cost, and workflow integration.
Cline: Open-Source Agent in Your Editor
Cline is a free, open-source AI coding agent that runs as an extension in VS Code or JetBrains IDEs. It uses a "bring your own key" (BYOK) model—you connect your preferred AI provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or local models) and pay only for inference.
The core philosophy: maximum transparency and developer control. Every plan, command, and file edit is visible and requires approval before execution. Cline can read your entire codebase, plan multi-step changes, and execute terminal commands—but you see exactly what it's doing at each step.
Key strengths:
Free and open-source—no subscription, just API costs
Model-agnostic—use Claude, GPT, Gemini, or run local LLMs for full privacy
Auditable execution—every action is logged and reviewable
Works in your existing setup—no new IDE to learn
The tradeoff: Cline requires more manual approval steps and doesn't include the tight inline completions that dedicated AI IDEs offer. It's built for autonomous task execution, not real-time autocomplete.
Cursor: AI-Native IDE
Cursor is a standalone code editor built on the VS Code codebase but redesigned around AI from the ground up. It handles everything—inline completions, chat, multi-file edits, and agent mode—in one integrated package.
The value proposition: a polished, subscription-based product where AI is woven into every interaction. Tab to accept completions, Cmd+K to edit selected code, chat for longer tasks, and "Composer" agent mode for autonomous multi-step work.
Key strengths:
Seamless inline completions—fast, context-aware autocomplete
Unified experience—chat, agent, and completions in one tool
Multiple model support—Claude, GPT, and Gemini built-in
Designed for speed—optimized for minimum latency
The tradeoff: Cursor is a paid subscription ($20/month for Pro), you're adopting a new IDE, and you have less visibility into exactly what the AI is doing under the hood.
Head-to-Head Comparison
Pricing model: Cline is free with BYOK API costs. Cursor is $20/month (Pro) with usage limits, plus extra for heavy agent use.
Inline completions: Cursor excels here—fast autocomplete is central to the experience. Cline focuses on task execution rather than keystroke-level suggestions.
Agentic capabilities: Both support autonomous multi-step tasks. Cline emphasizes transparency and human approval at each step. Cursor's Composer mode is more streamlined but less auditable.
Model flexibility: Cline works with any LLM backend, including local models. Cursor supports major cloud providers but doesn't offer full BYOK flexibility.
IDE commitment: Cline is an extension—use it alongside your existing VS Code setup. Cursor is a separate application you switch to entirely.
When to Choose Each
Choose Cline if:
You want open-source and full control over your AI interactions
You prefer paying per-token rather than a subscription
You need to run local models for privacy or compliance
You want to stay in VS Code without adopting a new IDE
Transparency and auditability matter for your workflow
Choose Cursor if:
You want the fastest possible inline completions
You prefer a polished, integrated product over DIY setup
Subscription pricing works better than variable API costs
You're willing to adopt a new IDE for a better AI experience
Beyond the Editor
Both Cline and Cursor assume you're working locally. For developers who want AI that operates on a persistent cloud environment—reading files, running code, managing services, and executing tasks autonomously—Zo takes a different approach entirely. Instead of augmenting your local editor, Zo gives you a cloud server where AI has full context of your workspace and can work independently.
See the best AI coding assistant comparison for how these tools fit into the broader landscape.