I have been using Windsurf for two years, and it was my first AI tool for tab code completion and code suggestion.

My main use case for Windsurf is typically using it for Angular code refactor or repetitive code, and for my code, it is very good for RxJS pipeline. I use it mostly for tab completion, code suggestion, and if there is any error in my code, I can easily send it to Windsurf Chat, and it gives me the fix for the bugs and issues in my TypeScript and Angular code.

I can give a quick specific example of how Windsurf helped me; it assisted me when I was migrating my Angular app from NG modules to standalone modules. I had a really difficult time giving my code to ChatGPT, but with Windsurf, I easily provided the file references, and it helped me fix the architecture-wise and structure-wise issues in app.modules, allowing me to refactor it efficiently.

Windsurf has created a personal impact on my productivity, allowing me to typically meet deadlines in one week instead of two. It has specifically reduced the time I spend writing boilerplate code, especially the Angular services, DTO mappings, and form models, as well as when I integrate API code.

In terms of specific metrics, Windsurf has significantly helped me with my daily tasks, and for bug rates, the mismatch during runtime development has been very low. It has assisted me with null checks that I often overlook when writing conditions and has improved my code quality overall.

The best features Windsurf offers are that it is usually free and has a TabNine Super complete feature that is very useful, suggesting multi-line completion and understanding the surrounding code and project context. It helps with repetitive typing, especially the Angular boilerplate code, and is very helpful in RxJS. I particularly appreciate the accurate completion, reading my repo whether it follows a standalone pattern or an NGB module pattern.

Windsurf's understanding of my Angular project context is better than basic auto-complete and less IntelliSense options because it understands what version of Angular I am using and what features I require. It suggests code based on my current usage, such as using new built-in flow and signals, resulting in fewer mechanical keystrokes than manual coding and fewer wrong guesses compared to other tools I typically use for free.

I would like to add that Windsurf is very good and fits well into my workflow, but I would prefer if the cascade agent of Windsurf could be a little better. Recently, I used the agent for an Angular upgrade from version 14 to 21, but it got stuck and did not provide a good response. I want the Windsurf cascade agent to improve in solving complex problems that occur throughout my entire repository.

I have many points for improvement, particularly regarding the cascade agent. It often fails to understand the latest Angular repo, not interacting with files like my Angular JSON, tsconfig, or package.json unless prompted. I want the cascade to be more predictable and wish for improvements in the agent to handle complex tasks more effectively.

Enhancing the reliability of the cascade agent for large and complex codebases, ensuring it understands projects thoroughly, and providing safer multi-file edits would make Windsurf a significantly stronger tool.

I have been working in my current field for about three or four years.

Windsurf is currently stable for me; I have not experienced any crashes or issues, though there may be rare instances when chatting with it, but overall, it has been reliable.

Windsurf scales well for day-to-day coding and tab completion, but I think it may become less reliable as my projects grow with larger codebases, especially with the cascade agent on complex repositories.

I have never contacted Windsurf's customer support as I have not encountered any issues requiring assistance.

I previously used Cursor because its agent version was stronger than Windsurf, but I still prefer Windsurf for code completions and suggestions. I also tried Anti-gravity, which has a good free tier, but I favor Windsurf for deeper refactoring tasks.

I signed up for Windsurf directly through their website and used a trial version about one or two years ago for the pro version, installing it in my VS Code extension.

Windsurf has created a personal impact on my productivity, allowing me to typically meet deadlines in one week instead of two. It has specifically reduced the time I spend writing boilerplate code, especially the Angular services, DTO mappings, and form models, as well as when I integrate API code. In terms of specific metrics, Windsurf has significantly helped me with my daily tasks, and for bug rates, the mismatch during runtime development has been very low. It has assisted me with null checks that I often overlook when writing conditions and has improved my code quality overall.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was great as I usually use the free version, which has amazing features for tab completion and no significant limitations on context windows.

Before choosing Windsurf, I evaluated GitHub Copilot and Cursor. I utilized Cursor for agent-based refactoring and Copilot for in-line suggestions before deciding to use Windsurf for its free version and superior tab completion and coding flow.

I took off 1.5 points primarily because the cascade agent needs improvement for better performance, especially in complex tasks and project memory management. It should help reduce review churn and be more reliable in my regular repository.

I advise others considering using Windsurf to start with the free or trial version to leverage its value for tab completion and day-to-day coding, as it reduces boilerplate tasks and assists with code refactoring and null checking. If it boosts productivity significantly, it would be worth considering the paid version but should be used cautiously with the cascade for smaller tasks.

My overall review rating for Windsurf is 8.5 out of 10.

My main use case for Windsurf is software development. A quick specific example of what I mainly use Windsurf for is developing whatever needs to be built.

Windsurf offers several valuable features, including the browser, which I really appreciate, but the best feature is integration. The browser feature is valuable for me because it helps me program in development and gain an understanding of the code. Windsurf has positively impacted my organization because we accomplish more with fewer people. Since using Windsurf, I notice more errors, but we deliver approximately twice as fast.

Windsurf can be improved by bringing back the browser integration. When new models come out, there needs to be a better way to find them instead of going to the release notes; the model picker should highlight the newer beta or free models more prominently.

I have been using Windsurf for just about a year.

Windsurf is stable most of the time.

Windsurf's scalability is maintained very well; I think it is more a function of the models than Windsurf itself. I have used it for a fairly large project, and it scales fine.

The customer support for Windsurf is good, as the release notes are really helpful.

Windsurf was the first solution I used.

I have seen a return on investment with Windsurf because I have saved time and money and needed fewer resources since using it. My clients save time and money, and we are generally about twice as fast with AI-enabled software development.

My experience with Windsurf's pricing, setup cost, and licensing was positive. I received a discount because I joined early, so the license cost or monthly rental of Windsurf has been reasonably priced.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Windsurf; it was the first one I looked at, and I was satisfied with it.

Windsurf can be improved by bringing back the browser integration. When new models come out, there needs to be a better way to find them instead of going to the release notes; the model picker should highlight the newer beta or free models more prominently. My advice for others looking into using Windsurf is to stick with it for about three months; it will take approximately three months to reach a point where you are faster with it. I would rate Windsurf a nine out of ten, as what would make it a ten for me is if the newer models last longer when they come out.

I have been using Windsurf for quite a long time, approximately four to five months. In my prior company, Windsurf was used, and in my new company, we also implemented Windsurf. For my personal use, I was using Windsurf Personal. I have been a thorough user for three to four months completely.

For example, if you have any software development project or any product requirement for which you need to build a SaaS solution, app, or back-end services, and you need to generate the code and ship it off quickly, you can use the Windsurf agent and IDE to provide commands using natural language, in English, just as humans speak, to its own agent. It would generate, go through your existing codebase, make recommendations, modify the existing codebase, and enhance productivity.

Windsurf is used in a company-wide practice as a code editor or IDE. It functions as a productivity tool. If I am working on a project and need to build or ship out certain features super fast, I would use the AI agent in Windsurf to generate the code, make minor modifications or adjustments on it, iterate over it, and then quickly ship it off. That is how Windsurf makes the most value addition to the team.

Even if the team size is small, using a tool such as Windsurf gives you a productivity boost. It comes with the free model, which they call SWE-LITE, SWE-1. These models are free, which is a big advantage for smaller teams. You do not have to spend money on different models or provide API key accesses. It comes out of the shelf with the editor.

There are two angles where Windsurf is actually better than Cursor or other competitive tools. Firstly, its understanding of the codebase is much better. If you have an existing codebase and are using the Windsurf IDE to run its AI agents to go through the codebase, it can identify design patterns and exactly what it is trying to do. Secondly, the price point is a significant advantage as Windsurf is way cheaper and does not force you to use any LLM providers, such as OpenAI or Anthropic.

It is very effective. If I am opening a file and have scripts already written, when I move my mouse pointer or push a tab on the keyboard, it automatically suggests almost 10 lines of code ahead. It reads through and tries to predict the next steps I need to take. Apart from the basic data setter, it predicts additional functions that may be needed, providing boilerplate code already.

We mostly use Python. In the earlier organization, we used Python and Go, along with some shell scripts and YML configuration files. These are quite accurate and great. I would give it nine out of 10 for that.

What they can do further and venture into next is to provide a CLI environment, similar to the command-line interface environment that Cursor offers. It allows for running a cursor agent from the command line to make changes, review pull requests, or access certain other capabilities. These capabilities are currently not in Windsurf. Windsurf focuses on the productivity and the ID/editor part.

I would rather look for the inclusion of pull request reviews or a kind of a TRD or technical requirement general documentation generation, or system diagram generation directly from the codebase in Windsurf itself. These should be the next obvious features they launch for developers.

In our team, there are certain people who use Windsurf regularly and appreciate using it. However, it is not a collaborative tool where someone is going to use the same tool and interact in the same IDE. Everyone does their local development, pushes it to different Git branches, someone reviews the PR, and then merges the branch. It is very localized in that sense.

I have been using Windsurf for quite a long time, approximately four to five months.

I did not have to deal with any deployment issues. It is so good that it is DIY (do it yourself). You can directly go ahead and use an editor. You do not need much technical support for it.

It is quite reliable. I would rate it eight out of 10. It is highly reliable.

We are satisfied with the service. We do not need additional help.

When it comes to setup, it is very simple. It is just an editor. You visit the website, create your subscription, and download the ID or editor based on your system. For Mac, it is a DMG file, and for Windows, it is an EXE installer file. You click on it, and it gets installed on your system. It is that simple and not complicated.

I would rate it two out of 10 for cost. It is very cheap compared to other tools in the market because 80% of the time, we are happy with their free model capabilities. Only 20% of the time do we go for a more in-depth or meticulous analysis. During this time, we use the Anthropic Claude model or OpenAI GPT-4 to dig deeper. That accounts for only 20% of the time, meaning it is only 20% of the cost, leading to a non-significant bill per month. Thus, it is much cheaper.

Cursor was a competitor to Windsurf. They have similar capabilities, such as code completion and script generation. The main differing point is the price. Cursor has higher pricing and does not provide any model itself. It would automatically choose a model based on the LLM providers you have access to, leading to a higher price point. Cursor's capabilities are otherwise comparable to Windsurf. For instance, there was a scenario about the OpenAI SDK package. While Windsurf provided the latest stable version, Cursor was a month behind and has only recently updated. It is a competitive landscape where both tools are comparable and try to outdo each other.

It is quite good and much better than alternatives. In our team, there are certain people who use Windsurf regularly and they appreciate using it. However, it is not a collaboration tool where someone is going to use the same tool and virtually interact in the same IDE. Everyone does their local development and pushes it to different Git branches, then someone does the PR review and merges the branch. It is very localized in that sense. Overall rating: 8/10.