Devin Desktop FedRAMP

On a day-to-day basis, I use Windsurf's agentic mode, the cascade, to develop features in different projects that I work on.

Most of my feature development starts with working with Windsurf's cascade on a plan. For example, if the feature is to develop a new UI update that is linked to a backend, I use cascade to develop a plan to update the UI and also the plan to update the backend. Then I review it and ask Windsurf's cascade to ask any questions about use cases that are not clear. Once I confirm all the ambiguities and validate the plan, I use the agentic cascade mode to finalize and implement the solution.

Windsurf also helps in debugging because the agentic mode has terminal access. When I have an error, I use it as the first step to debug. I give it the error description, the error logs, and it iterates on it to debug and give me a review or a report after it is done to identify the root cause that helps me easily identify and then create a fix. When I need to create a fix for the bug, I use Windsurf in cascade mode to identify and create a plan and then proceed with the implementation.

Windsurf's cascade mode with the agentic integration and the ability to connect MCP servers and create custom agents helps to increase productivity. The agentic mode and the ability to connect with MCP servers that allow me to bring other context into my workflow are the most useful features.

Regarding Windsurf's features and usability, I think the standard is industry standard compared to others. Because I use other AI tools as well, I do not have to do a lot of changing and looking for where things are because it is standard across most of the industry. I think that is a win. Things are easy to configure as well and not too complicated. Windsurf's agentic AI is much more capable compared to other solutions; it understands much more context of the code better than other AI agents or solutions.

Windsurf's impact on my organization is always positive. When used well, in a way that you can plan and ensure that you are developing things that go right in a positive way, you can develop things really quickly and much more robustly. I think it increased productivity. When it was deployed, a lot of engineers had positive results. Things that used to take maybe three or four days can be handled with Windsurf in a day. There is a lot of productivity gains and it allows us to do more in little time.

Regarding improvements for Windsurf, I think it would be good if we had an integration with the cloud, a sort of cloud that way we can have autonomous agents that can handle tasks without human intervention. I know you can run background tasks inside the IDE, but it would be good to have a cloud version where it could spin up its own environment and be able to run and create a pull request for you automatically when it is done. I do not know if it is in the roadmap, but that would be nice to have.

Most of the tools are improving. Windsurf has capabilities to do a lot of things, but it is not a ten out of ten because it is not completely autonomous and it still needs guidance. Sometimes there are hallucinations in the way it works. There are still certain things you need to be much more careful about; otherwise, you end up with code that is not compliant. It is an eight because it does the job well and it has to be guided as an assistant. When it becomes a fully autonomous agent where it can really do things without human intervention, it will become a ten.

I have used Windsurf for close to two years.

Windsurf is stable.

For the number of users we had, it scaled well to close to six hundred users that used it.

I had pretty prompt customer service for Windsurf. We had points of contact that we could reach directly in case of issues, and they were quick to provide feedback, resolutions, and alternative ways to work around some issues.

We do not use a different individual solution before Windsurf; we have a multi-solution approach in my company, using multiple tools such as Windsurf, Hero, and others. The choice depends on the engineer's preference and their use cases; they might decide one tool or the other.

The setup and licensing for Windsurf were done by a dedicated team in the organization. I have no input in that. Mostly my input is to have the tool and use it and assess it. I do not have much more information on that.

Windsurf was subjected to an internal survey with close to six hundred employees in the organization, and we realized based on input from the engineers that it is hard to really identify and track the metrics of savings. Based on surveys conducted internally, we realized that tasks that used to take a week could now take one or two days per engineer. It saves close to three days of work for a one-week task, based on metrics we have globally from people who actually use the tool.

We do not use a different individual solution before Windsurf; we have a multi-solution approach in my company, using multiple tools such as Windsurf, Hero, and others. The choice depends on the engineer's preference and their use cases; they might decide one tool or the other.

Windsurf is a good tool, really powerful, with a really good agentic mode. It has to be used well to ensure that you benefit from its productivity. It can be combined with other integrations to make sure you are getting more context into the environment and also to use plan mode more often to ensure you get the best results.

Regarding Windsurf's governance and security, I know that we have different modes that allow you to choose what level of access you give to the agent. I think it is really well-defined if you want to go full access mode or you want to give it restricted access. It is well-defined and allows you to select which level of security you want. I think it is pretty good in terms of how things are administered.

Regarding Windsurf's accuracy and reliability of output, if you do plan the work that you do with the agent and you iterate on it, you get better results. It has to be used in a much more structured manner; you need to have more input inside the initial way it works before getting really good results. It gives great results as long as you use the right approach with the agent. I gave this review a rating of eight out of ten.

I am a software developer with over two years of experience. I have been using Windsurf for approximately one to one and a half years since its introduction into my organization. I primarily work in enterprise application development and use Windsurf on a daily basis as my AI-assisted IDE to improve my development productivity and reduce the time required to understand large codebases.

Windsurf has been in use at my organization for one to one and a half years. Previously, we used GitHub Copilot as our AI assistant, but given the features that Windsurf brings to the table, my organization shifted to Windsurf, and I have much to share regarding its features and how it has made my life easier as a developer.

Windsurf is available as a separate IDE and also comes as a plugin. Developers use IDEs such as IntelliJ, and we can use it as a plugin there, but it is recommended to use Windsurf IDE itself, which provides many features. Understanding large codebases was a big time saver for me. Instead of opening forty Java classes, fifteen Angular files, and configuration files and APIs, I simply ask Windsurf to explain a module, how a request flows, or which classes are involved. It understands the relationship between files and explains the architecture.

Another feature I use on a daily basis is Cascade chat, which has two modes: Ask mode and write mode. I use the write mode seventy percent of the time because I can ask it to explain an implementation and also implement it side by side.

A favorite feature I find in Windsurf that is not present in other tools is Code Maps. As a developer, I sometimes need to understand the whole architecture and determine where to fit in a new feature or fix existing bugs. Understanding the architecture usually takes considerable time, but this feature allows me to visualize the current architecture of a very large codebase visually. When I click on the architecture, it takes me to the particular code where it is written. I can relate the architecture and the code side by side and understand the whole picture. This is one of my most favorite features because previously, I needed to rush through code in every file to understand what was happening behind the scenes. The overall architecture and that link with the code is a huge boost for developers.

Windsurf also has rules, which allow me to guide how AI generates responses. For example, if my organization follows a particular set of rules, I do not have to write them every time in the prompt. If we use Java seventeen and follow Spring Boot conventions, naming conventions, and should not use deprecated APIs, all of these repeating items can instead be written as rules inside Windsurf, and it will automatically take them into account in every response.

Similar to rules, there is another feature called skills, which allows me to use reusable prompts or workflows. For example, if there is a testing skill that generates test cases or edge cases using the Mockito framework, or a documentation skill that generates documentation or explains an API using something like Swagger, I can summarize a module. Instead of typing everything, skills make development much faster by allowing me to reuse prompts. Workflows is the bigger version, the superset of both these things. It helps me combine multiple AI actions together. For example, starting from requirement gathering and understanding, designing, coding, and then pushing to GitLab or GitHub, I can follow these procedures and later push to a specific branch. Rather than doing this every time, I can write these workflows separately and simply call them out in Windsurf. These are very specific features that Windsurf offers that I did not find in other AI tools such as GitHub Copilot.

Room for improvement is actually associated with every AI that exists. One thing is that if there is a very large codebase, such as a legacy codebase, sometimes the context window is a hindrance. There is a particular context window for every model, and for Windsurf in particular, if it is a very large legacy codebase, then you might have to pull in all of that code and only then maybe you will get the whole context. For very large projects, getting the context together intact is one thing that needs improvement.

Another thing that I feel needs to be improved is hallucination. Whenever the context is not set, AI occasionally needs validation. It is always recommended that human reviews are also required when Windsurf generates code. You need to review it always. Performance with large indexing operations or when using very large models and efficient models such as Claude Opus takes a lot of time. There is nothing much that can be done about it as it is all about the model, but sometimes large indexing operations do take time.

One more improvement that I feel is about documentation. There are a few other features I have not mentioned so far. There is one more feature called MCP, which is Model Context Protocol, present inside Windsurf. Instead of just chatting and asking it to generate code, I can use MCP to integrate it with external tools, whether it is Splunk, Veracode, or SonarQube. I can integrate it with all the external tools as well as internal tools and documentation, and it will do the work for me. It is not just that it will search in public and get details, which sometimes may hallucinate. MCP is one thing, and for advanced features such as MCP and workflows, sometimes I feel that documentation is not in detail. Windsurf could have better documentation for MCPs and workflows, and there are other niche and specific features that are present only in Windsurf.

I have been using Windsurf for one to one and a half years.

Stability is quite good. Only when the network is off or very rarely, Windsurf is almost 99.999 percent available and stable. I have no issues with that.

Windsurf works well for small projects, medium projects, and large enterprise repositories. The value actually increases as the project complexity grows. Features such as Code Maps prove to be of great value when project complexity increases, allowing me to make use of the features that Windsurf provides.

I have not had the need to contact customer service in my experience because the onboarding was smooth and the details and features that Windsurf provides are all good. We did not have any technical issues so far. Sometimes if there are any hiccups or if Windsurf does not respond, I simply quit it and restart my system, then start working again.

We had GitHub Copilot earlier, which we were using as our AI assistant.

The onboarding to Windsurf was easy because we had an internal document explaining how to onboard it into my organization. It was just adding a plugin to IntelliJ IDE and then downloading Windsurf from our own self-service portal. Once we downloaded it, we just had to set the proxy and we were all set and ready to go.

From the developer's end, maintenance involves the token allocation. There is a specific amount of tokens allotted to every developer monthly. I just have to make sure that the models I use in Windsurf, I do not keep using high-value and high-performance models every time so that I do not consume all tokens and be left with no credits. This is the only thing that developers have to take care of, but the maintenance is actually taken care of by the platform and the management.

Regarding pricing, I am a developer, and the pricing is handled by my management team and the platform team. As a developer, I was mainly focused on using the product rather than the procurement side.

I have also worked with SonarQube, and if that is an active product, I can provide a review for that as well. I have also been using Microsoft Teams very frequently.

A favorite feature I find in Windsurf that is not present in other tools is Code Maps. The onboarding to Windsurf was easy because we had an internal document explaining how to onboard it into my organization. From the developer's end, maintenance involves the token allocation, and there is a specific amount of tokens allotted to every developer monthly. Windsurf works well for small projects, medium projects, and large enterprise repositories. Room for improvement is associated with every AI that exists. My overall review rating for Windsurf is nine out of ten.

Our main use case for Windsurf is accelerating the development for all the client projects that we handle, especially when we are building websites, AI agents, and automations.

For example, when we need to create a landing page or a workflow for a client, we use Windsurf to quickly generate and refine the code, test ideas faster, and then reduce the time spent on repetitive development tasks.

We majorly use Windsurf to speed up the coding for client work and especially for all the websites that we design day in and day out. For the AI agents and automation projects, we use it extensively.

Windsurf has positively impacted our organization by helping us work faster and more efficiently.

Since we started using it, we have been able to move from an idea to implementation more quickly, reduce the repetitive coding, and spend more time on higher-value work such as refining client solutions and testing different approaches.

This has helped our small team stay productive across multiple projects.

The main improvement has been time savings, and we can move faster on websites, automations, and AI agent workflows so that we can take on more work and spend less time on repetitive development.

In terms of metrics, we are an eight-person team, and we were earlier handling a couple of projects because we had to do a lot of coding from scratch.

Now that Windsurf is in place, we are able to handle 14 different projects.

The prototyping has been remarkably quick.

When it comes to time-saving, it has saved a significant amount of time for us, and the initial effort has been substantially reduced.

The best features Windsurf offers for us are the fast code generation and intelligent suggestions.

They help us build faster, reduce repetitive work, and keep momentum.

The code it generates is of high quality.

With fast code generation and intelligent suggestions, I find the suggestions generally accurate enough to be useful and the code it generates usually gets us most of the way there.

We still refine it, but it reduces a lot of time and a lot of initial effort that we had to do previously.

What I appreciate the most about the features is that it keeps us moving.

For agency work, where we juggle multiple projects, that smooth workflow is really valuable because it reduces context switching and helps us stay productive.

The main improvements I would suggest for Windsurf are stronger context handling for bigger projects and a bit more control over the code it generates.

This would make it even smoother and faster for our agency work.

I would also appreciate a cleaner UI for larger projects, especially when there are many files and moving parts.

That would be a valuable addition.

Better integrations with our existing tools would help too, so we can move between coding, testing, and deployment more smoothly.

Overall, these improvements would make it even better for agency-style work where speed and clarity matter the most.

Regarding Windsurf's AI capabilities, it seems solid for general use, but because we work on client projects, we stay cautious with sensitive information.

More visibility into security controls, permissions, and data handling would make it even better for us.

It is adequate for our current needs, but stronger governance controls and clearer security options would be beneficial.

Beyond what we have discussed, a small improvement would be more consistency in the output on complex prompts and better context retention across longer tasks.

I have been using Windsurf for about 15 months now, mainly for development and AI-related workflows.

Windsurf has been stable for our agency work overall, with no major reliability issues.

In our experience, Windsurf has been scalable for day-to-day use cases and larger tasks.

It should support growth reasonably well, though performance and consistency would need to be monitored as usage increases.

It has scaled well for our current needs and appears suitable for large projects as well, with some attention needed as usage grows.

We have not needed to reach out to support very often, but when we did, the experience was generally positive and responsive.

We did use other tools before Windsurf, but we switched because Windsurf fit our workflow better and felt more efficient for day-to-day use cases.

The onboarding process was smooth overall.

New team members usually became very comfortable with Windsurf very quickly, and we only needed a brief introduction to get them started.

Windsurf integrated reasonably well with our existing tools and workflows.

It fit into our development process without much disruption, and we were able to use it alongside our normal setup.

It has improved collaboration by making work more consistent and reducing back and forth during the development.

We have seen a lot of positive return on investment, mainly through the time savings and improved productivity.

Earlier we were handling two projects, but now we can handle 14 projects.

It helped us reduce a lot of manual effort and speed up the development and support of multiple projects.

It reduced the initial effort, improved our productivity, and helped us save a significant amount of time.

In our case, Windsurf's pricing and licensing were reasonable and straightforward to work with, so we did not face any major setup complexity and the process was smooth from a procurement standpoint.

We evaluated other tools as part of the selection process, but Windsurf gave us the best balance of usability, integration, and productivity.

We went with Windsurf because of these advantages.

My advice would be to start with a small pilot project first so that the team can get comfortable with the workflow before rolling it out more broadly.

It is also worth setting clear guidelines on when to use it and having someone review outputs for more complex tasks.

Start small, define usage guidelines, and review outputs clearly at the beginning and you will see significant improvements.

I would rate this review 8 out of 10.

My main use case for Windsurf is utilizing its standard feature, Cascade, which understands our repository structure very well and is genius in understanding and tracing dependencies across all the files we are using. It helps in modifying multiple files together, explains why something is broken, and how to fix bugs while also carrying context along long coding sessions. For instance, with JWT authentication in this FastAPI app, it updates the front login flow, inspects back-end routes, creates middleware, updates environment configs, modifies React components, and is useful in patching API calls across the projects.

In addition to my main use case with Windsurf, something unique I have noticed compared to other tools is how it can chain tasks together, such as analyze, plan, edit, test, and refactor, while maintaining intent memory across steps. This makes it feel closer to an AI teammate than a chatbot. It also respects naming conventions, existing abstractions, and follows our repository patterns to avoid random styling mutations. Compared to the previous Cursor, Windsurf behaves as an agentic workflow-focused engineering assistant.

The best features Windsurf offers, in my opinion, include ID galaxy, its understanding of the whole mission feature, Cascade, multi-file editing, repository-wide context awareness, terminal understanding, persistent workload memory, and step-by-step execution. All of these are very helpful in tracing how our project uses notifications, inspecting joins, following ETL lineage, comparing schemas, identifying merge conditions, detecting inconsistent primary keys, and suggesting refactors across multiple modules. Windsurf uniquely combines the functionality of AI coding tools that often resemble an IDE plus a chatbot into one continuous stream.

Persistent workload memory in Windsurf significantly helps my workflow by reducing the repetitive reteaching of folder structures, naming conventions, business rules, APIs, database patterns, and edge cases. It allows Windsurf to gradually learn about our repo structure, engineering patterns, ongoing tasks, and recent edits, making it a powerful tool in enterprise projects as it generates code faster and reduces cognitive reload time.

One small yet impactful feature of Windsurf that I want to highlight is how it handles large refactors, such as renaming domain projects, restructuring services, changing authentication flows, migrating SQL models, and converting Oracle SQL to Spark. Windsurf allows us to continue and finish series handling logic without re-explaining everything and makes debugging easier as it remembers previous errors, failed fixes, and environment issues.

Running the workflow with Windsurf has definitely saved our time, as it easily understands our prompts and logic, reducing engineering friction and saving time on repetitive tasks such as refactoring, debugging, documentation, test generation, and context switching. With its repo awareness and persistent context, it significantly compresses the rediscovery cycle, resulting in faster onboarding, quicker PR turnaround, and fewer delays.

We follow the Agile methodology, and we have observed that typical environment improvements using Windsurf are 30 to 60% faster, with a 20 to 40% reduction in debugging issue times and over 50% faster documentation test integrations. We have also experienced saving days or weeks for new developer onboarding, and we save approximately 5 to 10 engineering hours per developer per week.

In terms of improvement, I believe Windsurf could enhance features for generating PPTs and documentation to be clearer and more understandable, including visuals.

I have been using Windsurf for almost six months.

Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by running our workflow more efficiently.

My advice to teams evaluating Windsurf is to expect magic but to avoid over-trusting its outputs initially, as it is only for tiny code suggestions. However, teams can benefit significantly from workflow acceleration, repo navigations, debugging, and refactoring, particularly in high-friction areas such as legacy refactoring, ETL transformations, API scaffolding, documentation, and test creation.

I rate this product an 8 out of 10.

I use Windsurf mainly to code projects that take less time to build based on prompting alone, which is similar to whiteboard coding.

I would not call it prototyping; I would call it complete end-to-end projects that I have built with Windsurf. For example, in my current work job, I built a delivery automation platform in Node.js using Windsurf. This involved integrating a Telegram bot into a Windsurf project to create a bot where delivery personnel can retrieve their daily delivery list. Everything was coded in Node.js with the help of Windsurf AI. For this project, I used the Claude Opus 2.7 model that Windsurf provides. It was quite quick for me to build this complete end-to-end solution and deploy it.

The time consumption has reduced drastically. If I had to build any project that would take at least a month or so with the required effort, I think it has been reduced to approximately a week, and the effort has also been reduced drastically.

As I explained, the delivery automation project that I am currently building would have taken easily at least 1.5 months minimum, considering I also had to deploy it. Now it only took me at most two weeks to build this from scratch, test it, and deploy it. Time consumption has truly been the most useful benefit.

In terms of cost savings, if I am building projects, it is saving more time, and I can utilize that extra time to build something else that is more important to the company. I would not say it is particularly about cost. The quality has obviously improved. Even though I come from a technical background, I think with the new models that Windsurf is providing access to, such as the latest ones from Claude or OpenAI models, their output and efficiency is much better than a person coding it. The quality is also better.

The thing I appreciated about Windsurf is the free AI model called Cascade, and it also provides SWE 1.5. Both of these, especially SWE 1.5, are very good at coding. Initially when I was in my college days, I did not have to jump onto the paid plan to build projects. Instead, I could use it with the SWE 1.5 model and build my blockchain projects for my college coursework. It was also quite quick. To elaborate, I was interning as well as studying in college. In that small amount of time that I had to quickly code and build this entire blockchain project for my coursework, I had to depend on Windsurf AI, for which I am very grateful, especially for SWE 1.5. Since I was still in college, I did not have to jump into the paid plan, and the free plan that included the SWE model worked out very well for me.

The best features Windsurf offers include the ability to handle prompts very maturely, as if I am explaining it to an engineer, so the model's understanding capabilities are very high. I would say even the free models that provide the SWE model are superb with understanding and planning out the entire approach. For example, if I have to start with a project, I only provide a brief about what I want, and Windsurf has already planned out step by step how and what to do. That is one significant feature. Second, as I mentioned, it takes the extension from VS Code, so the user interface is something I am already accustomed to. Furthermore, because the core objective of Windsurf is that you give prompts and it will do the coding, that core objective itself stands out. Nowadays AI is very involved in the work, so Windsurf has done a great job for coders where the coding is handled by the AI, and I just have to prompt. This is helpful even for non-technical people. They do not have to think or understand deeply into the code. Even the basics are fine, but not being deep into the code is acceptable if they do not know. By prompting and improving the prompts for Windsurf, I think they will get things done. I am grateful to Windsurf for this.

In summary, with the help of all these features that Windsurf provides, what is happening is the time consumption has been reduced drastically. If I had to build any project that would take at least a month or so with the required effort, I think it has been reduced to approximately a week, and the effort has also been reduced drastically.

Windsurf could be improved as it is lagging now compared to a competitor platform like Claude. It could have integrations with multiple MCP servers, compared to what Claude could offer. That is one area for improvement. Another area is the local hosting of Windsurf rather than just using it and downloading it. I think if I could remotely access Windsurf through prompts and such, it would also improve the features in this aspect.

Support for Windsurf could be better. I have faced the issue of having a paid plan but only being given free trial access. Even though I was on the paid plan and I had already paid, I needed that access instantly instead of being locked up with the limitation that the free trial had. The free trial only gave 100 credits, whereas my usage was even more than that. I had to be limited for that 10 to 14-day period that exists in the free trial, and only after that could I fully utilize it to its potential. That is one issue. This is something that most people have faced. I actually went through Reddit and other platforms, and this is something that most people have commented on, but it is still not yet corrected by Windsurf. That is one concern. However, the performance is good.

I have used Windsurf periodically for months. Since my college years, I have also used Windsurf to build projects and coursework. In addition, I use Windsurf in my current work job.

I think others looking into using Windsurf should start with the free plan and focus more on prompting. The best thing you could do is use the free models. You can use ChatGPT or Claude to get a proper understanding. First, explain what you want to those tools, get a prompt for it, and then use that prompt in Windsurf so that the output is much better than randomly saying things to Windsurf and asking it to get the job done. If you have a better understanding, you can go to ChatGPT or Claude, get a prompt from them, and then use that prompt in Windsurf so that the efficiency and output is much better. I have given this product a rating of 9 out of 10.

My main use case for Windsurf is developing various microservices in our domain, which are Java Spring-based microservices. I use Windsurf for generating code, writing unit test cases, and suggesting project creation from scratch, such as for Spring Boot. Moreover, we work heavily on the SQL side, where we frequently encounter slow-performing SQLs. I tune and fine-tune the SQLs with the help of Windsurf, and it gives good results to us.

Regarding my main use case with Windsurf, we try to adopt CI/CD as part of our current work protocol. We had an old repository of thirty to forty modules that needed to be migrated to CI/CD by updating the pom.xmls and the Jenkins build files, which involved very repetitive work that developers needed to do manually. I took the help of Windsurf for this CI/CD integration for one module and asked Windsurf to replicate the same steps in all the modules by adding the build XML file and making changes in the build and deployment aspects. It very smoothly replicated all those files in all the modules and saved a lot of time on this manual effort.

The best features Windsurf offers include the code generation part where I can suggest something for generating a code file, and it has the option of validating that file before it commits to my file system. I can either accept or reject those changes. It has the capability to generate code up to the mark, with good quality. Since I have multiple options to try different models, it provides me good flexibility to validate which model fits in which scenario, allowing me to decide and choose a model that helps get my work done.

Regarding the features, another important aspect is the understanding of the context of the codebase. Windsurf is very powerful in analyzing my source code and understanding the context against which I am asking it to generate code. It helps a lot when I open my code repository and give the context, and by searching the file, I can locate which file to change, and Windsurf can read the complete code. According to the context, it can suggest me the solution.

Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by saving significant time, which is a great feature I have observed. The redundant manual and repetitive work we used to do is now handled by Windsurf. Many old codes were developed by previous team members, and new team members find it hard to understand. Windsurf helps a lot in understanding the code and providing crisp details about what each part of the code does. It definitely reduces the developer's effort in coming up with solutions and understanding the features or functionalities written in the code.

I see an option for improvement regarding the platform that Windsurf is developed on, which is VS Code. We have projects in different technologies and languages, so if Windsurf can smoothly support running Java code, Spring Boot microservices, or enhance debugging capabilities, then it will be a one-stop shop for everything.

From a usability perspective, Windsurf should be more user-friendly. When code gets generated, I see room for improvement in copying, looking at old queries or prompts, and copying the output from the cascade window to other codebases.

I started exploring Windsurf since last year, so almost a year or so.

Windsurf so far looks stable to me; I have never seen it crash or fail to generate the required output. In the majority of cases, I see that Windsurf is working very stably.

Windsurf is able to handle larger workloads; I try to perform code generation for multiple modules, and Windsurf can manage that.

I have not talked to customer support for any issues.

I previously explored the Google Code Assistant once initially, and compared to that, I am really impressed by Windsurf's capability to understand the context and make code suggestions. That is why I prefer Windsurf. Before choosing Windsurf, I evaluated other options such as Google Code Assist.

I can comment on the time saved, but I do not have visibility on other aspects regarding return on investment.

We are more involved in the usability of Windsurf, so I am not sure about the pricing. The licensing is one aspect; we have a limited license for individual team members who can use Windsurf.

I would definitely suggest others to give Windsurf a try and start using all its features. It will help, and they will find some features that are very useful based on their requirements and what options they are looking for. Overall, Windsurf is a great tool, fitting the current AI journey that individual organizations are looking to join. It is really helping employees and developers accelerate their code generation lifecycle. I give Windsurf an eight out of ten overall.

I have been using Windsurf for the last six to seven months, and I am now working on the automation part of that as well, such as integrating Playwright and MCVS. I am integrating AI into Windsurf as well.

My main use case for Windsurf is especially for QA automation tasks. Windsurf helps with QA automation by enabling me to create test cases automatically because manually we cannot create any test cases, nor can we get into the user stories due to running upon the test creations and creating a new design ops. A lot of things which have to be done manually are now a hectic task. With the help of Playwright and MCVS, I integrate all the tickets, and I get the data populated, and all the QAT, UAT sign-off can also be done in an automatic way.

I can give you a quick specific example. On a daily basis, if I come through any new setup, I will for sure update my use case.

The best features Windsurf offers are the user interface as well as the zero latency.

Regarding the user interface, it is pretty good and easy to interact with, allowing any layman to get into Windsurf and easily go through the next steps. Coming to the latency part, it is zero latency, and I have never seen any lag happening to date.

Windsurf has impacted my organization positively in that previously, we used to do manual automation, performing around close to ten user stories, or at most eight user stories per sprint. But now, with this Windsurf and Playwright combination, I am probably handling close to thirty, forty, or even thirty-six user stories for release for every sprint.

Being able to handle thirty to thirty-six user stories per sprint, compared to eight before, has greatly impacted my team's productivity because the work culture and work structure have not changed. The only difference is that developers are now doing their work easily with this as well. People who are very new or not sure about the exact features of Windsurf will still manage eight to ten user stories in a sprint. However, those who are pretty aware of how to integrate the other features and use Windsurf can develop more.

I do not want to comment on anything as of now in terms of how Windsurf can be improved, but I will surely raise feedback if I figure out any aspects that may help in the global field.

You could please add a couple of other MCVSs, or else you can integrate some sort of new LLMs coming up as a wishlist item for the future regarding needed improvements.

I am working in my current field for more than close to ten years.

Windsurf is stable.

For scalability, Windsurf has a couple of options, and I will raise feedback whenever I feel there is some scope to improve, and that will go into the scalability pattern only.

I have not had any interaction with customer support yet as the situation has not come up, but I hope it does not come.

Previously, I used manual work as a different solution, and there was no AI integration, and people were not good enough at integrating those. But I am very good at integrating AI, so that is how I got Windsurf.

I have seen a return on investment regarding productivity; the business team will be looking into money and everything. But in terms of productivity, I have demonstrated that moving from eight story points per sprint to thirty to thirty-six story points per sprint is the good metric I have seen.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that everything is taken care of by the company, so I am not bothered or involved in this.

Before choosing Windsurf, I did not evaluate other options because I was using Windsurf for a long time in another organization also, and here, the only thing I did is integration, specifically AI integration.

My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is that going on a legacy model does not make any sense; you have to be smart in integrating the things that are already available on Windsurf. Explore Windsurf, do a deep dive into Windsurf's feasibilities, features, and everything, and that is where you can make much more of Windsurf.

I have no additional thoughts about Windsurf; it is pretty good and going good. The only thing is to keep on going and keep on doing the improvements as per the generation. I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

My main use case for Windsurf is building end-to-end automation frameworks from scratch, which I primarily use in my work environment. I also use it to build personal projects, create and debug test cases, particularly automated ones, and I am currently exploring agentic QA architectures with multi-agent systems, which I have really enjoyed.

I can give you a concrete example of how I have recently used Windsurf in one of my automation projects. I have used it in its different working modes, whether Chat, Code, or Plan. These modes have really allowed me to transform my workflow. For example, Plan mode helps me design the architecture of complex solutions before implementing any automation in either of my two work projects and also in my personal projects. Chat mode lets me ask questions about what is going on with the code and allows me to do quick debugging sessions, which I have really appreciated. At the Code level, the fact that it generates code for me much faster, so that I only have to review and orchestrate, has been one of the things I have liked the most. I also find it very beneficial that I can use MCP to enhance my automation flows, such as Maestro MCP and Playwright MCP, which I currently use.

I can use different AI models and I particularly appreciate the system called Adaptive, which has allowed me to save tokens and lets Windsurf choose which model it should use for whatever task I ask it for. I have found that quite beneficial.

I consider the best features that Windsurf offers to be what I already mentioned: the ability to use MCPs, the working modes which include Chat, Code, or Plan, and the capabilities it has to use agents, including custom ones within Windsurf, and the support for multiple LLMs or AI models. This means I can use both free models and the more professional ones, such as Anthropic's Claude models like Opus or Sonnet or the Codex ones.

I can go deeper into how MCPs have helped me in practice. For example, with Playwright, the ability to use MCPs such as Playwright Clean has allowed me to create better automation tests. I am currently facing a bigger challenge, which is automating the native app from my job, built with React Native. The ability to use Maestro MCP, which has recently come out, and that Windsurf now allows me to use locally to find better selectors or debug what I need for the automation has been very helpful.

Windsurf has positively impacted my work. While I don't know if my organization uses all of Windsurf, in my case it has had a positive impact and has allowed me to work much faster and create higher-quality tests. It has allowed me to cover areas, especially at the backend level, to run tests, which has been beneficial. So it has allowed me to meet deadlines, work faster, and more efficiently.

In the automation of the app, Windsurf has allowed me to save time and improve the quality of the tests. I know that today there are many tools with which you can automate, but the ability to use Windsurf's agents plus the MCPs to move forward with the app's automation was a very good advantage.

I think Windsurf could be improved. Honestly, I see it as super competitive today with the vast majority of AI IDEs out there. It would be great, even though it already has the models, to be able to include Claude Code at the console level, which I think would be really cool.

I have been using Windsurf for approximately seven or eight months.

Windsurf is very stable in my experience.

I cannot share any specific return on investment metrics with Windsurf because I do not manage that, but I can tell you that I have reduced my time and that compared to other IDEs, Windsurf is very efficient.

I evaluated other options before choosing Windsurf. I evaluated Anti-gravity, which I also appreciated, but today it is very heavy and I did not prefer that. I also evaluated Cursor and spent some time with it, but I did not prefer it that much either. What I appreciate about Windsurf at this moment is that I can give it autonomy, and I also appreciate being aware of what it is doing without it doing everything automatically. I appreciate being able to review everything, and I think that is an advantage. I do not have to be creating rules for Windsurf for it to do that, but I think it is kind of cautious.

My advice to others who are considering using Windsurf is that they should use it. Right now there is a mode where they provide 14 days free. I think in those 14 days you realize that it is a tremendous code editor and that you will appreciate Windsurf.

I have no additional comments about Windsurf before we finish, except that it is very good, I have made quite a lot of use of it, and I hope it continues to improve and keep pace with other code IDEs. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.

My main use case for Windsurf is building and iterating on AI-driven products faster, especially when working with multi-file codebases and agent-style workflows. At Ser AI, I use it heavily for exploring and understanding large codebases quickly, generating and modifying features across multiple files, debugging with context-aware suggestions, and prototyping AI workflows such as agents, memory systems, and integrations. What I appreciate is that it is not just autocomplete; it actually understands project-level context, so I can move faster from idea to working feature.

A recent example of where Windsurf helped me in my workflow was while I was working on an AI-driven feature in Ser AI where I was building an agent workflow that connects multiple parts of the system such as API calls, prompt handling, and response processing. Normally, this would involve jumping across multiple files, understanding existing logic, and stitching everything together manually. Getting back to work after long breaks always means losing context, which is when I use Windsurf so much to understand existing logic and stitch everything together. With Windsurf, I was able to quickly understand how different parts of the codebase were connected, generate and modify logic across multiple files, and debug issues with more context instead of isolated snippets. One specific moment was when I had to refactor how data was flowing between components; instead of rewriting everything manually, I used Windsurf to restructure the logic end to end, and it saved a lot of time. Overall, it helped me move faster from idea to working implementation, especially for complex multi-file changes.

In my day-to-day work, the biggest difference is speed at the system level, not just coding speed. Building a feature means understanding the codebase, writing logic, wiring things together, testing, and fixing. With Windsurf, especially using Cascade, a lot of that becomes one continuous flow. For example, when I add a new API flow or connect to front-end logic and update response handling, I can describe the intent, and Cascade actually executes changes across multiple files. I can give it prompts without typing, so it feels I am delegating a task instead of manually doing every step. That is where it stands out in daily work. I spend more time thinking about architecture and less time jumping between files. Browser-based testing has been useful when I am working on flows that involve UI and back-end together. Instead of writing code, switching to browser tests manually, and coming back to fix, I can stay in one loop where I build the feature, test behavior quickly, and identify issues faster, reducing context switching, especially when validating end-to-end flows. The real impact in workflow is faster iteration cycles, less manual glue work between components, and better focus on logic and product decisions. One important observation is that when working across longer sessions or switching models, sometimes the deeper context does not persist perfectly, so I have to realign the intent again.

At Ser AI, the biggest positive impact of Windsurf has been on speed of execution and iteration. Since we are building AI-driven features and experimenting on the creator marketing side, the ability to go from idea to working prototype quickly is critical. Windsurf, especially with Cascade, has helped us reduce the time it takes to build and ship features, handle multi-file changes without slowing down, and iterate faster on experiments. One clear outcome is that features that would normally take a couple of days to wire up end to end can now be done much faster because a lot of the repetitive glue work is handled. It also improves how we approach problems by breaking things down into very small coding tasks; we think more in terms of complete flows or systems because we know the tool can handle the level of execution. Another impact is onboarding and understanding the codebase. When jumping into a new part of the system, Windsurf helps quickly understand how things are connected, which reduces ramp-up time. The overall outcome is more experimentation in less time and better focus on product and logic instead of boilerplate work.

The best features Windsurf offers are Cascade, the agent system, full codebase awareness, multi-file editing and refactoring, and AI chat integrated within it. One drawback I personally see is the persistent context memory layer, which needs to be improved over time. One more best thing is that you can use the browser to actually see and sense the elements and test them.

The real impact in workflow is faster iteration cycles, less manual glue work between components, and better focus on logic and product decisions. One important observation is that when working across longer sessions or switching models, sometimes the deeper context does not persist perfectly, so I have to realign the intent again.

At Ser AI, the biggest positive impact of Windsurf has been on speed of execution and iteration. Since we are building AI-driven features and experimenting on the creator marketing side, the ability to go from idea to working prototype quickly is critical. Windsurf, especially with Cascade, has helped us reduce the time it takes to build and ship features, handle multi-file changes without slowing down, and iterate faster on experiments. One clear outcome is that features that would normally take a couple of days to wire up end to end can now be done much faster because a lot of the repetitive glue work is handled. It also improves how we approach problems by breaking things down into very small coding tasks; we think more in terms of complete flows or systems because we know the tool can handle the level of execution. Another impact is onboarding and understanding the codebase. When jumping into a new part of the system, Windsurf helps quickly understand how things are connected, which reduces ramp-up time. The overall outcome is more experimentation in less time and better focus on product and logic instead of boilerplate work.

Windsurf has become less of a tool and more of a core part of how I build. I do not think in terms of writing code line by line anymore; I think in terms of features, flows, and systems, and Windsurf helped me translate that into actual implementation across the codebase. It fits especially well when I am doing rapid prototyping, exploring new ideas or architectures, or iterating on existing features quickly. At the same time, one thing I have noticed in my workflow is around model switching. When I switch between models, the GPT generating agent models sometimes the deeper context regarding decision reasoning or intermediate steps does not fully carry over, so I end up re-establishing context manually every time. It is so much painfully manual; that is not a blocker, but since I work on fairly complex multi-step systems, having strong cross-model memory consistency would make it even more powerful.

One thing I would really appreciate is stronger cross-model memory and context continuity. Right now, when I switch between models, the surface-level context is there, but the deeper reasoning regarding why certain decisions were made or how a flow evolved does not always carry over fully. Since I work on complex and multi-step agents, I end up re-establishing the context manually. If Windsurf could maintain a kind of shared memory layer across models where intent, decisions, and intermediate steps persist, it would make the whole experience much more seamless. Improving the memory continuity and control would take it from powerful to extremely reliable at scale.

Overall, Windsurf is already a strong tool, but there are a few areas where improvements would make a big difference, especially for advanced workflows. The first is cross-model memory and context continuity. The second is better control over agent execution. Right now, when switching between models—for instance, if I am using a tier of models and then I reach a limit, and then I need to switch to a lesser limit model—the high-level context is there, but deeper reasoning is lost. A shared memory layer across models would make the experience much more seamless. Furthermore, while Cascade is powerful, for larger changes, it would help to have more visibility or control, such as previewing the execution plan and guiding steps before it runs.

The UI and documentation provided are pretty good, though I think there is room for true visibility and feedback during agent execution. While the amount of time put into the design and documentation is great, figuring out things with the documentation can often be done without any third-party help. Some advanced use cases are not fully explored in the documentation, but the best practices for using agents effectively are very clear, such as how to structure prompts for multi-file changes and how to guide Cascade for better outputs. Real-world advanced examples are already implemented in there; that could be very helpful for us.

The main advice I would give to others looking into using Windsurf is to not use it as a traditional code assistant. Windsurf really shines when you treat it as a feature-level or system-level tool, not just something for autocomplete or small snippets. So instead of thinking "write this function," think more toward "build this flow." Learn how to guide it properly. That is the main thing I would advise: learn how to guide it properly, how to prompt it properly, and start with real use cases, not toy examples.

I have been using Windsurf for around two to three years.

Windsurf is stable. Overall, performance has been quite strong, especially for the kind of work we do at Ser AI. In terms of speed and reliability, for most tasks such as code generation and debugging, it is pretty fast and keeps the flow uninterrupted, which is important when iterating on things such as creator analytics, matching logics, and building negotiation systems. I have not faced any major downtime that blocked work, which is a good sign. There is some variation during heavier tasks or longer complex prompts, where response time can increase a bit. Occasionally, in longer sessions, the context feels slightly less consistent, which can affect output quality more than speed, but these are more edge cases rather than frequent issues.

From what I have seen, Windsurf scales pretty well, especially at the codebase level. At Ser AI, we are working on systems such as creator analytics, matching injections, and multi-step workflows, which involve multiple services and files. Windsurf handles that complexity well because of its codebase awareness and multi-file execution. For larger projects, it understands and operates across bigger repositories, helps maintain consistency when making changes across connected components, and reduces the effort needed to navigate and manage complexity. For teams, it improves individual developer productivity significantly, makes it easier for team members to jump into different parts of the system, and reduces ramp-up time. Scalability can improve with stronger shared memory or context across team members and better ways to standardize how teams use agents.

From my experience, customer support has been good and responsive overall. I have not had to rely heavily on support for critical issues, which is a good sign in terms of product stability. Whenever I looked for help, especially through documentation and community resources, I have been able to find what I needed.

Before Windsurf, I was mainly using tools such as GitHub Copilot and Cursor alongside my IDEs. They were helpful for autocomplete, small code snippets, and quick fixes, but the limitation was that everything was still very fragmented. For instance, when I was building something regarding a creator scoring or matching system, I had to manually move across files, write logic piece by piece, and stitch everything together myself. The AI was helping, but only at a local level, not a system level. The main reason I switched to Windsurf is that it assists me while I code and helps me execute a full feature. The implementation and reasoning capabilities of Windsurf are much clearer than others.

I looked at and used a few other options before settling on Windsurf. I used GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, and some other AI-assisted editors. I did not do a very formal evaluation process, but I used them enough in real projects to understand their real strengths and limitations, and that is how I noticed these drawbacks and moved to Windsurf later.

It is not that I used something before and then switched; we actually switch between different tools and alternatives to find the best one, and we found Windsurf as the best.

The integration has been pretty seamless, especially with the core development stack. Since it works directly within the IDE environment, it fits into existing codebases, Git workflows, and typical dev tooling without needing extra setup. From a day-to-day perspective, I did not have to change how I work; it just enhanced the workflow. It also works well alongside back-end services and APIs we are building, front-end frameworks, and general cloud-based tooling. So it fits into the ecosystem rather than forcing a new one.

Adoption was actually pretty smooth at Ser AI. Since we are building in the creator marketing and AI space, our workflows already involve a lot of rapid experimentation, integration of APIs, and iterating on features such as analytics, matching systems, and automation. Windsurf fits into how we already work. The biggest advantage was that the team did not need heavy training. If you understand your system and can clearly describe what you want to build, Windsurf becomes useful almost immediately. Where it helped especially in our domain is quickly building and iterating, tying together multi-step flows regarding data injection and processing output. Onboarding felt more regarding starting to use and improve over time rather than formal training. We faced challenges learning how to structure prompts properly, guide the agent, and manage context across longer sessions or model switches.

We are using the hosted setup, which falls under another provider rather than directly using Amazon, Google, or Microsoft from our side. Windsurf manages the underlying infrastructure, and we access it as a cloud-based development environment without directly configuring AWS, GCP, or Azure for it.

We have definitely seen a clear return on investment at Ser AI. The biggest impact is on time and output, which directly translates to cost. In terms of time saved, we save roughly thirty to forty percent on future development time. The iteration cycles are about two times faster, especially for things regarding creator analytics, matching logic, and automation workflows. Because of that, we are able to ship around one and a half to two times more features or experiments per week. This means, instead of needing to scale the team early, we can do more with a smaller team. Realistically, it delays the need for additional hires because one developer can handle more system-level work. A simple example from Ser AI is where we were building a creator brand matching and scoring flow. It involved injecting creator data, applying scoring logic, connecting it to APIs, and generating output for brands. Earlier, this would take around one to two days to fully wire up across the back end and front end. With Windsurf, especially using Cascade, we are able to implement the flow across multiple files in a few hours instead of days.

I can give rough but realistic estimates based on my workflow at Ser AI. For future development, I would say we have seen around thirty to forty percent reduction in end-to-end implementation. Something that used to take maybe one to two days, especially involving multiple files and integrations, can now be done in a few hours. For iteration cycles, we are able to test and refine ideas about two times faster, mainly because we are not spending time on repetitive wiring and context switching. For onboarding and understanding new parts of the codebase, I would estimate around forty to fifty percent faster. Instead of manually tracing files and dependencies, Windsurf helps surface how things are connected pretty quickly. For overall output, it is not just more code; it is more completed features. I would say we were able to ship significantly more experiments per week, around one and a half to two times compared to before, especially for AI-related features. Before, we spent more time in navigation, wiring, and debugging across files; after, we spend more time in decision making, logic, and product thinking.

The overall experience with pricing has been straightforward and manageable. Since it is cloud-based and a managed tool, you do not have to spend time or money on setup or infrastructure. We could start using it almost immediately. The pricing feels aligned with the value it provides, especially considering the productivity gains. Since it helps us build features faster, reduce development time, and ship more experiments, the cost is justified from an ROI perspective. The licensing standpoint is simple and has not slowed us down. Windsurf fits well for a small, fast-moving team without adding operational overhead. As a startup working on creator marketing and AI systems, we are always conscious about cost, but tools regarding this make sense if they directly improve execution speed and output, which it does.

Everything is quite agile; but if I need to mention something, it would be the handling of longer or ongoing sessions and response consistency. My review rating for Windsurf is nine point five out of ten.

Compared to other IDEs and AI-powered development tools I have used, Windsurf operates at a system level, not just code snippet level. Most tools such as Copilot, Cursor, or basic AI assistants are great for autocomplete, small code generation, isolated fixes, and the reasoning is pretty weak in them. They still keep up in a file-by-file workflow. Windsurf, especially with Cascade, shifts that to feature level execution, multi-file understanding, and end-to-end changes across the codebase. That is a big jump in productivity. In terms of workflow, it reduces a lot for us, so instead of writing, switching, testing, coming back, and fixing, it becomes more regarding defining intent, executing, and refining. That is a much tighter loop. In terms of productivity, I would say other tools give incremental improvements, while Windsurf gives a more step-change improvement.

From my experience, Windsurf feels regarding a managed cloud service, so a lot of security and data handling is abstracted away, which is convenient from a development perspective. It integrates smoothly without exposing or breaking our existing workflow. We are not required to manually handle infrastructure or data pipelines, and for typical development use, it feels reasonably safe and controlled. We are mindful about not exposing highly sensitive credentials directly into prompts and keeping critical secrets managed through environment variables or backend systems. So we treat it similar to how we would use any cloud-based AI tool.