Cursor has been, for many of us, the answer to the big question: «...".«What tools should we use to be more productive when developing software?«. After various tests and analysis, everything seemed to lead in the same direction. Cursor seemed to be the perfect balance between performance and expense. Millions of users and a competitive price seemed to support this bet. However, something has broken down: Cursor's model does not seem sustainable, and they are «forced» to pass this on to their customers, which means that the product not only ceases to be attractive, but can become directly unaffordable.

How did we get here? How has this impacted the community? What was Cursor's plan? What alternatives do we have today? That is what we will try to unravel in the following report.

Section 1: The Catalyst for Change: Deconstructing Cursor's Price Gouging and its Impact on the Community

The need to reassess an organization's AI integration strategy often arises from a disruptive change in the market. In this case, the catalyst has been the strategic shift of Cursor, an AI-focused Integrated Development Environment (IDE) that had gained considerable traction among developers. This section takes an in-depth look at the transition of Cursor's pricing model, quantifies its impact on developer workflow, and examines the resulting erosion of trust, laying the groundwork for why an alternative strategy is needed.

1.1 From Predictable Applications to Opaque Credits: A Model in Transition

The initial appeal of Cursor's Pro plan lay in its simplicity and predictability. For a flat fee of $20 per month, developers received a clear quota of 500 «quick requests.» This model was easy to understand and allowed developers and their organizations to budget AI usage effectively, aligning cost with tangible usage metrics.

However, this clarity was replaced by a considerably more complex and opaque usage credit model. The new Pro plan, while retaining the $20 price, now provided «at least $20 of Agent model inference at API prices.» This fundamental change decoupled the cost from the simple «requests» metric and tied it to the variable token costs of the underlying large language models (LLMs). The result is significant variability: the same $20 USD translates to about 225 requests to Claude's Sonnet 4 model, but about 550 requests to Google's Gemini model. This lack of predictability makes cost planning nearly impossible for professional users.

To compound the confusion, the company quietly introduced higher pricing tiers, such as a $60 «Pro+» plan and a $200 «Ultra» plan, which are only discovered by digging into the billing pages. The developer community perceived this not as the introduction of new capabilities, but as a forced upsell to regain a level of functionality previously available in the standard $20 USD plan.

The transition from a clear value model to an opaque cost model represents a fundamental investment in the product's value proposition. The core problem is not simply a price increase, but a restructuring that penalizes the use of the tool's most powerful features. Previously, the $20 plan allowed 500 interactions with any supported premium model. Under the new system, the most advanced and computationally expensive models (such as Claude Sonnet 4), which are precisely the main attraction for professional developers, consume the allocated credits at a much faster rate. A user who previously enjoyed 500 high-value applications might now find his allocation reduced to less than half for the same model. This creates significant psychological friction, where users are deterred from using the best capabilities of the tool to conserve their credits, thus devaluing the overall experience.

1.2 The Community Response: A Case Study of Broken Trust

Reaction from the developer community to the pricing change was swift and overwhelmingly negative. On forums, Reddit threads and social media platforms, users expressed a deep sense of betrayal. The change was repeatedly labeled a «bait-and-switch,» a «scam,» and, more formally, a «classic VC-backed scam.» This terminology is not trivial; it reflects a perception that the terms of the agreement were changed unilaterally after users had invested time and money in integrating the tool into their workflows.

The complaints were not merely theoretical. Reports abounded of users exhausting their monthly limits in a matter of days, sometimes with what they considered minimal usage. A common sentiment was that developers were now spending more time «carefully designing their prompts to make sure they don't consume an absurd amount of tokens in a single request» than actually programming. This micro-transaction management imposed on the user is the antithesis of a productive workflow.

The frustration was compounded by a perceived lack of transparency and communication from the Cursor team. Users found their limits running out without warning, with no clear real-time usage breakdowns and explanations that the community found insufficient. In addition, technical complaints arose directly related to the pricing model, such as «token drain,» where incomplete or aborted responses by the system continued to consume user credits, reinforcing the sense of poor value and an unfair system.

1.3 The Underlying Economy: Why This Change Was Inevitable

Although the community response focused on user experience, Cursor's pricing change did not occur in a vacuum. It reflects a broader market correction and the harsh economic realities of operating AI services at scale. Discussions on platforms like Hacker News reveal a deeper understanding of the forces at play. The computational cost of running next-generation LLMs is extraordinarily high and, contrary to early expectations, is not decreasing as models become more capable. Each API call to an advanced LLM has a significant marginal cost, more akin to renting compute time in the cloud than a call to a traditional software API.

From this perspective, Cursor's generous initial plans can be understood as a venture capital-funded user acquisition strategy designed to capture market share and build a dependent user base. The shift to a usage-based model is thus not an anomaly, but a predictable move toward business sustainability once that user base has been established.13

This pattern, often referred to as the VC Squeeze, is a strategic risk inherent in the adoption of any tool from a heavily funded startup. The cycle is consistent: a startup raises significant capital, offers a product at an unsustainable price point to drive rapid growth, and once users are onboarded and the market captured, the terms are modified to align with actual costs and investor return expectations. For a company evaluating AI tools, this underscores a crucial lesson: the evaluation cannot be merely technical. It must include a rigorous analysis of the vendor's business model. The sustainability and transparency of the pricing model are as important as the feature set, as they determine the long-term stability and predictability of the partnership. A tool adoption strategy should therefore favor suppliers with transparent and sustainable pricing models to avoid falling victim to the next «squeeze».

Section 2: The Consolidated Challenger: GitHub Copilot

In the landscape of AI-assisted development tools, GitHub Copilot stands as the leading and most stable contender for organizations looking for an alternative to Cursor. Backed by the Microsoft and GitHub ecosystem, Copilot has rapidly evolved from an autocomplete assistant to a comprehensive AI platform. This section evaluates its value proposition, its rapidly expanding feature set, and the strategic advantages of its deep ecosystem integration.

2.1 The Value Proposition: Predictability and Affordability

The most immediate and compelling advantage of GitHub Copilot is its pricing model. It offers a simple and straightforward flat fee structure: $10 per month for individual users and $19 per user per month for enterprises. This approach contrasts sharply with Cursor's variable and often confusing credit system. For a development team, this translates into total budget predictability, eliminating the risk of unexpected overage charges and the cognitive overload of token management.

Although there are usage limits, the developer community describes them as «effectively unlimited» for a normal workflow. Users report that they can make over a hundred requests a day without reaching the rate limits on the standard plan, reinforcing the perception of a high-value, «flat-rate» service. This «generosity,» backed by the scale of Microsoft's infrastructure, positions Copilot as a low-risk, high-return solution for organization-wide deployment.

Copilot's strategy seems to focus on becoming the «good enough» tool for the 95% of developers. While advanced users may find specific features in niche tools marginally superior (e.g., Cursor's instant editing speed), Copilot's combination of low and predictable pricing, deep ecosystem integration, and a feature set that quickly approaches parity makes it a default option with some appeal. By removing the barrier of cost and complexity, it facilitates widespread adoption of AI tools across an organization, democratizing access to AI-enhanced productivity.

2.2 Closing the Functionality Gap: From AutoComplete to AI Agent.

Initially perceived as a superior code auto-completion tool, GitHub Copilot has evolved at a breakneck pace to compete directly with the more advanced capabilities of its rivals. The platform has expanded to include a full chat interface and, crucially, an «agent mode» capable of performing edits on multiple files and executing development tasks autonomously.

This development is of paramount strategic importance, as it places Copilot in direct competition with the agent capabilities that were Cursor's primary differentiator. Community sentiment reflects this change; many developers have concluded that Copilot now «does the same thing as Cursor» for half the price.

However, a nuanced analysis must recognize the differences that persist. Some experienced users still consider Cursor's agent user experience, its near-instantaneous editing speed, and its «Tab» autocomplete model to be superior. Copilot edits, in particular, are often described as visibly slower, writing code at near human speed, which can disrupt the flow of an experienced developer. However, for a portion of the market, Copilot's huge cost and predictability advantage outweighs these performance differences.

2.3 The Ecosystem Advantage and the Revolutionary «BYOK».»

Copilot's most enduring competitive advantage may not lie in an individual feature, but in its native integration into the GitHub and Microsoft ecosystem. For teams already using GitHub for version control, issue management, CI/CD actions and project planning, Copilot offers a seamless, unified experience that no third-party tool can fully replicate.

The most significant and strategically powerful development in the recent evolution of Copilot is the introduction of Bring Your Own Key (BYOK) support. This functionality allows users to connect their own API keys from leading model providers such as Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and even local models running through Ollama.

The BYOK capability directly addresses the fundamental weakness of packaged AI services: the lack of user control and the suspicion that the models provided may be limited or «nerfed» to control vendor costs. With BYOK, a team can operate on Copilot's affordable flat-rate plan for the vast majority of daily tasks, but seamlessly switch to a high-powered pay-per-use model (e.g., Claude's latest model or GPT) for critical tasks requiring maximum capacity, all within the same VS Code interface. While this feature is currently in preview for individual plans, its planned arrival for enterprise plans represents a paradigm shift.

Microsoft's introduction of BYOK is a strategic move that seeks to neutralize the main risk of its competitors' business model. The core problem with platforms like Cursor is the misalignment of incentives: the provider needs to minimize its API costs, while the user wants maximum AI power, leading to opaque credit systems and possible performance limitation. The BYOK model decouples the interface provider (Microsoft) from the model provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.). The user pays Microsoft a flat fee for the platform and the model provider directly for usage. This eliminates the platform's incentive to limit or obfuscate usage, creating a transparent and aligned relationship. For a company, adopting a Copilot-centric strategy with a plan to leverage BYOK offers a powerful hedge against future market volatility and pricing games from other vendors, making Copilot's platform a presumably more stable and reliable long-term bet.

Section 3: Integrated SDI Alternatives: Windsurfing and the Future of Cursor

There are other tools that, like Cursor, adopt the philosophy of delivering a fully native AI experience by creating a complete IDE from a fork of Visual Studio Code. For example, Windsurf, which stands as a direct competitor and, more importantly, we dare to project Cursor's future trajectory following its strategic acquisition of Supermaven, a move that could redefine its position in the market.

3.1 Windsurf (formerly Codeium): The Agent-Centered Contingent

Windsurf is presented as a robust alternative to Cursor, sharing the same DNA as a fork of VS Code designed for deep AI integration. Its main proposition is an agent-centric workflow, embodied in its «Cascade» feature, which handles complex tasks autonomously. The community often praises its ability to manage context in large code bases, and some users consider it superior to Cursor in this regard.

However, its pricing model reflects the same complexities that have plagued Cursor. Windsurf's Pro plan, priced at $15 USD per month, includes a set number of «prompt credits.» This reintroduces concerns about cost predictability, with users reporting that «flow action credits simply run out» quickly and that the system can be confusing to understand and manage.

Community sentiment towards Windsurf is decidedly mixed. While many praise its potential and innovative feature set, others report significant bugs, stability issues and poor customer support, which has led some to abandon the platform. The recent rebranding of Codeium to Windsurf and the launch of a standalone editor are key developments that indicate a company that is evolving, but still faces the challenges of product maturity.

The philosophy of the forked IDE, shared by both Cursor and Windsurf, is based on the premise that deeper AI integration is only possible by controlling the entire editor environment. This approach allows for a potentially more seamless and «magical» user experience than can be achieved through the extension APIs of a standard IDE. However, this strategy carries significant inherent risks. First, there is the risk of falling behind the main VS Code development branch, losing access to the latest performance, security and feature enhancements of the base editor. Second, these forks introduce their own unique and frustrating set of bugs, such as problems with linters in Windsurf or incompatibilities with advanced workflows such as development containers in Cursor. Finally, there is the risk of incompatibility with VS Code's vast ecosystem of extensions. The decision to adopt a forked IDE is therefore not simply the choice of an AI wizard, but a commitment to a non-standard development platform, with long-term implications for stability, maintenance and possible dependency on a single vendor.

3.2 Strategic Analysis: Cursor and Supermaven Merger

The most critical and forward-looking development in this space is the acquisition of Supermaven by Anysphere, Cursor's parent company, at the end of 2024. This is no minor acquisition; it represents a strategic move to address Cursor's fundamental weaknesses and consolidate its market position.

Supermaven had quickly established itself as a technology leader in one specific but crucial area: code completion. Its key strengths are an extraordinarily fast auto-completion engine and, most importantly, a massive 1 million token context window, significantly larger than its competitors at the time. This technology directly addresses Cursor's major weaknesses: token drain, context limitations, and the high cost of API calls with large context payloads.

The stated goal of the merger is to integrate Supermaven's context-rich technology directly into the core of Cursor, especially its «Tab» auto-completion model. The vision is to create a «complete solution that developers love and trust» by combining Cursor's native AI user experience with Supermaven's state-of-the-art context and completion engine.

3.3 Projecting the «New Cursor»: A Potential Market Leader?

The integration of Supermaven's technology has the potential to transform Cursor. A «New Cursor» powered by the Supermaven engine could offer an unprecedented combination of a deeply integrated AI IDE and a world-class context and completion model. Theoretically, this could solve many of the performance and cost issues that caused the initial negative reaction from the community. By internalizing a critical and expensive part of its technology stack, Cursor could offer more generous context at a lower internal cost.

However, the fundamental unknown is how this acquisition will affect the pricing model. There are two plausible scenarios. In the optimistic scenario, control over the context engine allows Cursor to offer more competitive and predictable plans, regaining the goodwill of the community. In the pessimistic scenario, the company could position the «New Cursor» as a high-performance premium product and maintain or even increase its pricing structure, targeting a market segment willing to pay a premium for the best technology.

This acquisition signals a maturation of the market for AI development tools. The era of small startups competing on isolated features is coming to an end. The future looks to be a battle between large vertically integrated platforms that control the editor, agent layer and underlying context models or engines. The Cursor/Supermaven merger is Cursor's attempt to build such a platform to compete directly with the Microsoft/GitHub/OpenAI ecosystem. Therefore, the choice of a tool is no longer a tactical decision about a product, but a strategic alignment with one of the emerging ecosystems that will shape the future of software development for years to come.

Section 4: The Power User's Bet: Direct API and CLI-Centered Tools

Beyond integrated IDEs that package AI access, there is an alternative strategy for teams that prioritize maximum control, unfiltered power and total transparency over the convenience of an all-in-one solution. This section explores the workflow and economics of using command-line-centric (CLI) tools that operate on a direct pay-as-you-go API model.

4.1 The BYOK Philosophy: Unfiltered Power, Transparent Cost

The core concept of tools such as Aider, Cline and Claude Code is Bring Your Own Key (BYOK) in its purest form. These tools do not include access to AI models. Instead, the user provides their own API key from a model provider (such as Anthropic, OpenAI or Google) and pays that provider directly for each input and output token they use.

The main advantage of this approach is absolute transparency and power. There are no «nerfed» context windows, opaque credit systems or intermediaries that may be optimizing API calls to reduce their own costs. The user gets the full, unrestricted capability of the underlying model. The cost is directly proportional to usage, which, while it may be high, is completely predictable based on public API price sheets. This model aligns incentives perfectly: the user pays for what he consumes, and the tool is designed to maximize the efficiency of that consumption.

4.2 An In-Depth Analysis of Claude Code CLI

Claude Code has become a leading example of this category, frequently praised by developers who abandon Cursor in search of more power and control. It is described as an AI agent that «lives in your terminal,» designed to integrate into a command-line-centric workflow.

Its strengths lie in its superior memory and context management in complex tasks. Unlike tools that rely solely on embeddings, Claude Code can leverage local file system tools such as grep to parse the code base, giving it a deeper and more accurate understanding of context. Users report that it can run autonomously for longer periods than Cursor and often produces more correct code on the first try.

The workflow, however, is fundamentally different and requires a great deal of comfort with the command line. It lacks the visual diffing and built-in checkpointing that IDEs offer. However, this drawback can be mitigated by running the tool within the embedded terminal of an IDE such as VS Code, which allows you to view file changes in real time.

4.3 Economic Reality: When is «Expensive» Worth It?

It is crucial to directly address the issue of cost. Although the price per token is transparent, intensive use of these tools can be extremely expensive. Users of tools such as Cline or Roo report that it is easy to incur costs of more than $100 USD per day for a single senior developer using them intensively.

The argument for this expense is based on value. These tools are designed to solve complex problems that cheaper, context-limited alternatives simply cannot address. As one user noted in a forum, «you can use [a cheaper model] all day and it will never get to the solution that [a more powerful model with full context] can achieve.» This positions BYOK/CLI tools as a solution for high-value, complex tasks, where the cost of a senior developer's time far outweighs the cost of API calls. It may not be a cost-effective solution for the day-to-day work of an entire team, but it could be an incredibly powerful tool for experienced engineers, system architects or for specific research and development projects.

The emergence of a strong following for CLI tools reveals a fundamental bifurcation in the way developers want to interact with AI. One group prefers AI to be deeply integrated into a visual, GUI-based workflow (Cursor, Windsurf). The other prefers AI to be a powerful, programmable tool within a text- and terminal-centric workflow (Claude Code, Aider). This is not just a tool preference, but a work philosophy. An organization must evaluate its own engineering culture to see which philosophy fits best.

In addition, there is an implicit distinction in community discussions between tools for «vibe coding» (less experienced developers who use AI to generate large amounts of code that they may not fully understand) and tools for senior engineers (who use AI as a precision tool to augment their existing depth of knowledge). Packaged, easy-to-use IDEs can sometimes be more geared toward the former, while powerful, high-control CLI tools are geared toward the latter. The BYOK model is the ultimate senior engineer's tool, as it provides raw, unmediated access to AI power, which is most effective when wielded by someone who can provide accurate, expert guidance. This suggests that a tiered tooling strategy, providing different tools to different roles, might be most optimal.

Section 5: Strategic Decision Framework

This section synthesizes all of the above findings in a clear, decision-oriented format. It presents a comprehensive comparison table and decision matrix to help your organization match the right tool to your specific needs, priorities and culture.

5.1 Decision Matrix: Assigning Tools to Your Company's Priorities

This framework is designed to enable your company to self-assess and choose the most appropriate path. It is structured as a series of priority-based guidelines:

If your top priority is... Cost Predictability and Stability:

• GitHub Copilot is the unequivocal choice. Its flat-rate model eliminates budget uncertainty and provides a solid and reliable foundation for the entire organization.

If your top priority is... Maximum Gross Yield and Control (and budget is secondary):

• A tool-based strategy CLI/BYOK as Claude Code, or the use of GitHub Copilot with a BYOK model is optimal. This path is for teams where squeezing every ounce of performance out of AI is critical to solving complex problems.

If your top priority is... the most Integrated and «AI Native» User Experience:

• The choice is between Windsurf and the «New Cursor». Windsurf is available now but carries stability risks and a credit-based pricing model. The «New Cursor» is a bet on the future potential of the merger with Supermaven, with the promise of superior performance but uncertainty about its future pricing model.

If your top priority is... a Balanced and Hybrid Approach:

• The emerging best practice is to use GitHub Copilot as a baseline for the entire team, providing a high-value, low-cost tool for everyone. This is in addition to selective access to BYOK models or specialized tools for senior engineers or specific high-value projects. This approach balances cost, power and flexibility.

Section 6: Actionable Recommendations and Implementation Pathways

What can we do within our company from a strategic point of view? We are going to propose several concrete ways, recognizing that a single solution is probably not optimal in such a dynamic technological landscape.

6.1 Recommendation A: The Stability and Scalability Pathway (Default Recommendation)

• Action: Standardize the use of GitHub Copilot for Business for all developers.
• Justification: This option provides the best balance of cost predictability, feature richness and ecosystem stability. It is the lowest risk, highest value option for a large deployment in a software company. It allows for easy budget planning and integrates seamlessly with existing GitHub-based workflows.
• Implementation Plan:

1. Phase out existing Cursor subscriptions as they expire.
2. Deploy Copilot for Business licenses to all development staff.
3. Establish a small pilot program with senior engineers to test the BYOK functionality (when available for Business plans) with an Anthropic or OpenAI API key. The goal is to quantify the costs and benefits for highly complex tasks and prepare the organization for more advanced use.
4. Actively monitor the market, specifically the evolution of the post-merger «New Cursor», and plan a strategic review in 12-18 months to reassess the outlook.

6.2 Recommendation B: The Performance First Pathway

• Action: Adopt a two-tier tooling strategy. Provide GitHub Copilot as a baseline for all, but equip a dedicated group of «AI Power Users» (e.g., senior architects, R&D teams) with budgets for direct API access via tools such as Claude Code CLI or Copilot's BYOK function.
• Justification: This approach recognizes that not all development tasks are the same. It provides a cost-effective solution for most day-to-day work, while empowering key personnel with the best possible tools for the most challenging problems, thus maximizing their impact and leverage.
• Implementation Plan:

1. Follow steps 1 and 2 of Recommendation A.
2. Identify a pilot group of 5 to 10 senior engineers or a critical project team.
3. Set a monthly API budget (e.g. $100-200 USD per user) for this group, to be used with your preferred BYOK-enabled tool.
4. Require the pilot group to document use cases where high-performance, high-cost tools provided a clear return on investment over Copilot's standard offering to justify program expansion.

6.3 Recommendation C: The «Watchful Waiting» Way»

• Action: Transition most of the equipment to GitHub Copilot for immediate cost savings and stability. Simultaneously, assign a small, nimble team to actively pilot and evaluate the Post-melting cursor.
• Justification: This is a hedging strategy. It captures the immediate benefits of switching to Copilot while keeping an option open with what could become the next market-leading product. Avoid fully committing to the Cursor ecosystem until its new performance features and pricing model are clear and proven.
• Implementation Plan:

1. Follow step 1 of Recommendation A.
2. Select a single project team to be the dedicated «Cursor Evaluation Team».
3. Fund Pro/Ultra licenses for this equipment once the Supermaven integration is officially launched.
4. Require a quarterly report from this team comparing the productivity, cost and real-world stability of the «New Cursor» with the company's Copilot baseline.

6.4 Final Strategic Council

The landscape of AI tools for developers is extremely volatile. The most critical capability for your company is not choosing the «perfect» tool today, but building a strategy that is flexible and adaptable. The recommended hybrid approaches, centered on a stable baseline (Copilot) with options for specialized high-performance tools, provide this adaptability. This allows your organization to benefit from today's best value while retaining the ability to pivot as the next generation of truly integrated, high-performance, and fairly priced AI development environments emerge.

You can discover more content about Cursor at our blog

How Cursor can help us in software development