Cursor vs GitHub Copilot: what 13 developers chose.
1,425 opinions. 13 developers named a direct preference: Cursor 10–3. Approval is 55% vs 42%.
If you want UX, choose Cursor. If you want autonomy, choose GitHub Copilot. The 10–3 direct split is not a landslide; it is a difference in working style.
Choose Cursor if you…
- Want stronger code-quality and UX scores
- Care most about fast inline completion
- Want one interface for several agent models
Choose GitHub Copilot if you…
- Already work in VS Code and GitHub
- Prefer per-request billing over token billing
- Want agent mode on an established codebase
UX for Cursor. Autonomy for GitHub Copilot.
Net sentiment per topic: praise minus complaints, as a share of mentions. Positive means more praise than complaints. Hover a dot for the raw counts.
Net sentiment = praise minus complaints, as a share of each tool's mentions. The dot lanes are only for readability; position is the score.
View data table
| Topic | Cursor | GitHub Copilot | Mentions |
|---|---|---|---|
| UX | +26 | -2 | 160 / 98 |
| Autonomy | +15 | +30 | 52 / 37 |
| Cost & pricing | -2 | -14 | 118 / 140 |
| Code quality | +9 | -42 | 108 / 131 |
| Reliability | -61 | -59 | 72 / 68 |
| Usage limits | -8 | -22 | 37 / 51 |
| Speed | +69 | -10 | 52 / 29 |
| Customization | +40 | +4 | 30 / 25 |
The same decision, from both sides.
Paraphrased from comments where a developer named a preference or described a switch. Each links to the original.
Picked Cursor 10 developers
Cursor was far better than Copilot for two or three months, though Claude Code later became their preference.
Calls Copilot the weakest mainstream coding tool, behind Cursor on completions and behind rivals on agentic work, and says it is no longer cheap.
Copilot's autocomplete was slow and poor, while Cursor was fast and gave useful results; may still cancel Cursor over Musk.
Used Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, Codex and OpenCode extensively; says Copilot was far behind, slow and poor, while the others were close.
Picked GitHub Copilot 3 developers
Finds Copilot's new model good at basics and uses it for Linear tasks, while Cursor needs prodding to check review comments.
Cursor's $20 limit ran out much faster than Copilot's and suspects Copilot's tools are better optimized.
A staff engineer prefers Copilot Pro over Cursor, Claude Code, Codex and OpenCode for agent work on an established TypeScript codebase.
The numbers.
| Metric | Cursor | GitHub Copilot |
|---|---|---|
| Approval | 55% | 42% |
| Last 90 days | 53% | 38% |
| Opinions | 766 | 659 |
| Developers | 600 | 535 |
| First-hand opinions | 583 | 501 |
| Direct picks | 10 | 3 |
| Type | AI IDE | IDE extension |
| Made by | Anysphere | GitHub |
| Website | Visit ↗ | Visit ↗ |
Related matchups.
Claude Code vs Cursor
61–42 direct picks, and a clear difference in what developers optimise for.
Claude Code vs GitHub Copilot
40–18 direct picks, and a clear difference in what developers optimise for.
OpenAI Codex vs Cursor
21–7 direct picks, and a clear difference in what developers optimise for.
How to read this comparison.
Approval is the positive share of opinions that took a side, with the rank based on the lower bound of a 90% confidence interval. Direct picks count comments where a developer explicitly preferred one tool or described switching. Small samples are noisier; check the opinion counts.
Get the monthly report
Which AI coding tools gained or lost developer approval on Hacker News, and why people switched. One email a month.