My main use case for Windsurf is coding, unit test case creations, and debugging for front-end Angular. For debugging in Angular, if I need to check the code with issues, template issues, or any lint issues, I can ask Windsurf to check the specific file or related things, and it analyzes and provides me the solution. For unit test cases, I will ask Windsurf to create that test case for a specific file or function.

I find that Windsurf is a good tool to use, as it automates many things in coding, development, and analysis. Windsurf offers features such as auto suggestions. When comparing Windsurf's auto-suggestions to other tools I've tried, I notice that a few suggest irrelevant content or don't match the syntax, while Windsurf analyzes the code and provides suggestions that match the code or functionality accurately.

Windsurf is a good tool that everyone can use, as it has many features that reduce the time required for coding. Windsurf positively impacts my organization by reducing the efforts required to depend on more critical technologies, as it provides everything within itself and offers many latest technologies. Both time and productivity are saved by using Windsurf, making it a recommended tool.

Windsurf can improve its analytical solutions and inbuilt features, as I currently have a dependency on external third-party tools that could be introduced into Windsurf itself to reduce that time or dependency. The only improvement needed for Windsurf is to reduce dependency on third-party tools.

I have used the solution for around ten months.

Windsurf is almost stable.

Windsurf's scalability is almost good.

I hear that Windsurf's customer support is good, but I haven't reached out to customer support since I haven't faced many issues.

Before Windsurf, I used GitHub Copilot as another solution.

I see a return on investment with Windsurf, as it reduces effort and allows for a decrease in the number of developers needed.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Windsurf depend on the customer only and are not specific to developers, as this is decided by management and upper teams.

I evaluated other options such as GitHub Copilot before choosing Windsurf.

Windsurf is already in development and is almost fully developed, and it keeps improving. For those looking into using Windsurf, I advise them to understand all the features that can be utilized in Windsurf, which reduces their effort and time. Everything is good with this interview, and all questions are relevant to the feedback. I would rate this review experience a 9 out of 10.

My main use case for Windsurf was to create a website for the company.

A specific example of how I used Windsurf to create the website is that we needed a simple landing page for the new company, which included just a few sections, a hero section, a few feature sections, and a form for contact.

This is the only project I used it for, and it was a test. We were trying to test AI tools to speed up our work since it was a small startup.

The best features Windsurf offers, from my experience back in early 2025, include being a prompt-based, LLM style app and website builder. I mostly used the prompt to create the website even though I can develop and program, as we were testing to see if we could create the website faster.

Windsurf positively impacted my organization during the testing phase as it was the first tool that we used, which was good to compare with other tools.

Comparing Windsurf to other tools helped shape our expectations because it was the first tool that we used, so we had nothing to compare to.

When I started using Windsurf, I had a worse experience compared to building using code, as I am very fast at building code and it gave me tons of errors that I needed to fix. So it was basically faster to code all over again than to use the prompt-based approach. I used it for a few days, and then we dropped it and used Lovable instead.

The interface of Windsurf was quite easy to use, so I do not have a problem with the UI. However, the issue was that it gave me so many errors that took too long to fix, and it was hard to polish it because I spent so much time fixing the errors related to building what I wanted and also publishing.

If you ever bring back the prompt-based builder for Windsurf, then just make sure there are fewer errors coming up, as the experience was not bad; it just took too long to fix the errors. That is what I would improve.

I have been using Windsurf for about a year.

I would say Windsurf was 90% stable.

I do not know about Windsurf's scalability because we would not need more websites, but if you are building websites for clients, then I think if it did not have so many errors, we could scale. We would probably need to get a new plan, but I feel it could be scalable.

I did not previously use a different solution.

I did say it saved us about 10 hours of design time because, even though we did not continue with it, it helped us pin down and filter some of the things that we needed to decide on for the website.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was that we used the free license back then.

Before choosing Windsurf, we evaluated both Lovable and Windsurf.

I just joined Windsurf again because I used it a year ago for a few days and never used it again, but when I joined now to see what changes it had, I noticed that it seems like a completely different tool that is much more robust with a different goal now. I see a lot of potential and would try to use it again for its new purpose.

My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is that if you are looking for the tool that it was a year ago, it is just gone. It is a different tool now, but if your needs are more technical, involving code, then I would definitely check it out.

I am rating this review 5.

I have mainly used Windsurf for testing purposes. I started using it when it became popular, especially before it was called Windsurf, when it was called Codium. I have used both the editor and the autocomplete service.

I experimented with how they handle the topic and how they implement the AI flow in the same way as other AI-based editors. I mainly wanted to see what their different proposal was, and I developed a couple of projects specifically to test this.

The last project I developed was an editorial-style landing page using Astro, which did not have interactivity; however, they were components with a lot of dynamism and a lot of logic between animations and user-triggered flows.

For my main workflow, I do React Native development, and my main hurdle in using this editor, which is not strictly Windsurf's fault, is the performance issue. Since React Native, along with all the tools I need to keep running at the same time, consumes a lot of resources. The editor becomes one more competitor for my system resources, and this harms me a lot in performance, especially regarding RAM. I know this is not directly Windsurf's fault; it is the fault of what it is based on. But this is one of my major impediments when it comes to using an editor based on Visual Studio, which is Windsurf's case, and with which I had problems when developing in React Native.

The particular tool Windsurf has to differentiate the AI-generated code helped me. Even though nowadays most editors already have a very similar tool, Windsurf's was the first that impressed me and was useful for me.

I think Windsurf is the one that offers the most consistent experience. However, I have to admit that the competition is pretty stiff. For me personally, the biggest differentiator when using an AI editor is the available models, and in reality most editors already have the same models. There is not a feature for me that stands out in Windsurf over other text editors currently, mainly speaking of flows, which are what really matter.

Since the vast majority of editors are based on Visual Studio Code, many times, especially at the beginning, you could notice how certain flows were still the same as Visual Studio Code unintentionally, for example, names of windows or things of that nature. However, Windsurf was the first that changed the editor layout format a bit, but kept it consistent across all its tools and how you were redirected between them. For example, with the same chat window, which at the time Visual Studio did not have a chat window and Windsurf developed one, and it worked quite well, it felt quite integrated into the editor because it was dynamic. On the other hand, there were other editors that had chat at the time, and it was quite clunky and very manual.

Even though not mentioned as an improvement, the tool for seeing differences between the previous code and the new code generated by AI helped me a lot to debug possible errors before seeing them, especially for certain animations involving SVG vectors.

I like the model Windsurf implemented, Windsurf's own model, SWE. I think it is good for what it offers, especially on a free tier. However, again, you have to go to the advanced models to really get a big difference.

Windsurf is not a current daily work tool. It is a tool that has been used in an exploratory way, which has been satisfactory; however, as I mentioned, there has been no noticeable difference compared to other tools.

In terms of productivity, there has not been any notable improvement. It was more pleasant at a usage level, but in terms of pure productivity as such, there has not been improvement.

I think having a light mode to be able to just edit code with a minimum of services running could help, since especially nowadays when there is scarcity or problems regarding RAM, when you do not have enough capacity. For example, I have a machine with 16 GB of RAM, and even with that, developing in React Native, I experience slowdowns, lags, and I see how my system slows down when I have many services consuming my RAM. Currently, I use native editors that help me, and the difference is very noticeable; it is practically from 100 megabytes to 1 gigabyte. I think optimizing resource consumption would be a very key point.

A very large project becomes a bit complicated to manage, since you have to have a lot of control over how the model is executed, basically having directives. However, I am not sure if this is replicable in other editors, because I have not tried that many large projects.

I have not had to contact support.

Windsurf was the first AI editor I used, specifically in an exploratory way. After Windsurf was when I dared to try other tools to see what different things they offered.

I evaluated both Zed, the editor that is native, and terminal tools such as Cloud Code and Open Code using other APIs.

The last project I developed was an editorial-style landing page using Astro, which did not have interactivity; however, they were components with a lot of dynamism and a lot of logic between animations and user-triggered flows.

In terms of productivity, there has not been any notable improvement. It was more pleasant at a usage level, but in terms of pure productivity as such, there has not been improvement.

For my main workflow, I do React Native development, and my main hurdle in using this editor, which is not strictly Windsurf's fault, is the performance issue. Since React Native, along with all the tools I need to keep running at the same time, consumes a lot of resources. The editor becomes one more competitor for my system resources, and this harms me a lot in performance, especially regarding RAM. I know this is not directly Windsurf's fault; it is the fault of what it is based on. But this is one of my major impediments when it comes to using an editor based on Visual Studio, which is Windsurf's case, and with which I had problems when developing in React Native.

I think having a light mode to be able to just edit code with a minimum of services running could help, since especially nowadays when there is scarcity or problems regarding RAM, when you do not have enough capacity. For example, I have a machine with 16 GB of RAM, and even with that, developing in React Native, I experience slowdowns, lags, and I see how my system slows down when I have many services consuming my RAM. Currently, I use native editors that help me, and the difference is very noticeable; it is practically from 100 megabytes to 1 gigabyte. I think optimizing resource consumption would be a very key point.

A very large project becomes a bit complicated to manage, since you have to have a lot of control over how the model is executed, basically having directives. However, I am not sure if this is replicable in other editors, because I have not tried that many large projects.

I would rate this product a 7 out of 10.

Regarding a specific example of how I use Windsurf, I engaged in a contextual conversation with the agent for a cross-cloud integration between AWS and Azure, leveraging a hybrid approach between cloud and Grok models to find the most cost-effective logic for the script. I provided the agent with the specific target environment, a virtual machine, and defined the deployment requirements. Windsurf helped me generate and refine the PowerShell script needed to bridge the two platforms, while ensuring the automation was optimized for performance and budget.

I use Windsurf to implement a lot of pipelines on GitHub Actions. I was working with the migration from Jenkins on a legacy application, and Windsurf helped me significantly with this migration, debugging all the pipelines and aiding me substantially with CI/CD.

All of the team has started working with Windsurf. We use rules for all the team so we have a standard procedure for deployment. This has helped with the agile development of the team, and with another application such as Linear, working with issues and incidents.

We were deploying one time a week before we started working with Windsurf, and with Windsurf, we are succeeding in a maximum of five releases in a week.

Windsurf is built on VS Code, which is the industry standard. This is a huge advantage for me because it allows for a seamless transition. I can keep using all my essential DevOps extensions for Azure, AWS, and Kubernetes without any compatibility issues. The user interface is familiar and high performance, meaning there is no learning curve. It feels like my professional environment, but with superpowers, thanks to the integrated AI Flow.

A standout moment was during a migration from Jenkins to GitHub Actions, converting complex Jenkins files into GitHub Actions workflows, which is typically a tedious process. Using Windsurf AI Flow, I was able to point the agent to my existing Jenkins pipelines. The AI did not just translate the code; it mapped the logic across the entire codebase, identifying environment variables, secret management requirements, and build dependencies. It autonomously generated the new GitHub workflow files and even suggested fixes for syntax mismatches that would have taken me hours to debug manually.

Windsurf is supporting MCP, which is an important standard for the integration with other tools. Most of the context tokens are consumed by documentation. We need a good structure for the agent to be optimized with this. Most of the time, our developers are wasting money because the agent does not save the context properly.

The tokens were fully consumed in the middle of the month. With the on-demand plan, we do not get extra tokens, so we have to downgrade our use of the agent models to a free one. When that happened, it increased the time of development because all the developers had to prompt the agents in a better way. However, that is more related to the decision on the plans. In five or six days, I consume all the tokens.

I have been using Windsurf for two years. My main use case for Windsurf is code building. I use Windsurf for code building on a day-to-day basis. We started with Windsurf as the first platform we used for Agentic coding.

Windsurf offers an easy place to engage with LLMs inside an IDE. What I find most valuable about engaging with LLMs inside the IDE is both the speed and the integration.

Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by allowing us to experiment and adopt Agentic coding practices before major platforms such as VS Code, Bard, and Codex jumped on board. It was one of the first that allowed us to use whatever LLMs we wanted inside an IDE to write code, and so it was where we started our frontier two years ago. Since adopting Windsurf, I have been able to downsize my staff and increase my output by 5x.

Windsurf needs to be improved because the entire coding harness needs to be rethought. We need a bigger IDE that is outside of what just a VS Code fork is at this point in time. To do that, we need something different. What that is, I'm not certain, but things such as inboxing models and inboxing on different tasks are needed. One of the big things that I'm using right now is Conductor.build, which satisfies a lot of these boxes, but even that doesn't feel total because what Windsurf has now is just the table stakes of what it is to be in Agentic coding.

I wish Windsurf would break down things to using things that we're used to and take us away and abstract away from the codebase more. I don't review code; I don't look at code anymore. My team members don't look at code; I have agents that review code, and that needs to be part of the UI. Looking at code is now almost obsolete.

Windsurf is stable.

Windsurf's scalability is fine.

The customer support for Windsurf is good.

Prior to Windsurf, we were using GitHub Copilot because it was the only possible AI solution around coding at that point. However, that game has significantly changed over the last few years.

I have seen a return on investment; I was able to reduce my staff, and I've watched my shipping metrics increase by 5x.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is fine.

Before choosing Windsurf, we looked at Cursor and we looked at GitHub Copilot.

My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is to think big and dream big. I appreciate Windsurf and where it was before it was acquired by Droll and Antigravity came out. We just need to think bigger about the IDE and change the developer experience. I have rated this review an 8.

I am using Windsurf for generating unit test cases for my code and to improve my code, improve functionality in that code, and mostly I'm using it for coding purposes to generate new code.

For generating unit test cases, I am working on an MVC application, so there were many action methods in my application, and I generated the unit test cases for those action methods using Windsurf. I asked Windsurf to generate the unit test cases for those methods.

In my main use case for Windsurf, I sometimes ask it to optimize my code, as there were some performance-related glitches in the code, so I asked Windsurf to improve those.

In my opinion, the best features Windsurf offers are limited, as I have not used much apart from generating the code, but I found it less intelligent than the other AI tools in the market.

Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by improving our code quality and reducing our development time.

I feel that Windsurf can be improved, as sometimes it keeps giving the same answer again and again, which makes me feel stuck at those points in time, because it is giving the same answer in a loop.

I think they should definitely improve Windsurf. My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is to work on your prompt skills, and if it gives the same answer again and again, try a new chat.

I have never had a chance to talk to Windsurf's customer support, as I never had any complaint about that.

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

I would say that Windsurf is somewhat stable.

Windsurf's scalability could be better, but we need more engines to select.

I have never had a chance to talk to Windsurf's customer support, as I never had any complaint about that.

Currently, I see only two AI engines I can select for Windsurf: one is the base model and the other is Claude 3.7.

My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is to work on your prompt skills, and if it gives the same answer again and again, try a new chat.

I would rate this product a 6 overall.

My main use case for Windsurf is code generation and live coding, as well as agent tech engineering.

I use Windsurf to understand existing code bases and add features to new code bases, as well as to debug issues using agent mode or tab completions.

Day-to-day, I mostly use the agent mode, and I have been using tab coding and tab completions less often now.

I use Windsurf to understand code bases by creating markdown documents.

The best features Windsurf offers are that it is fast, it maintains context well about the code base, and I appreciate the user interface.

The speed and context maintenance help me in my work because they keep me focused and I know what is exactly going on because it shows nice progress indicators.

Windsurf can be improved by integrating newer features and the latest features that tools like Claude Code provide, since I think the core team has been absorbed into Google and many people have been switching over to other IDEs.

I wish Windsurf had the ability to switch between multiple terminal agents like Claude Code and Codex; I am not sure if it is already integrated, but I know that MCP support has been added.

I have been using the solution for around one and a half to two years.

Windsurf is stable for the most part.

The scalability of Windsurf is good enough.

I have not had the need to reach out to customer support.

Before Windsurf, I was using VS Code and Cursor, and I switched because I wanted to know what Windsurf offers.

I had coded in Cursor before choosing Windsurf.

I am not sure if multiple people at my organization use Windsurf, but I personally do, and Windsurf with a good LLM model usually helps me to solve many coding tasks with ease.

Windsurf helps me solve coding tasks by often predicting what I would usually type next in tab completions, which saves me from typing multiple lines. For brainstorming and research work, I use agents so that I have contextual documentation and can solve multiple tasks easily.

My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is to read the documentation and demonstration videos to understand how to effectively use the tool. I would rate my overall experience with Windsurf as a seven.

For any product development or proof of concept and minimum viable product development, I utilize Windsurf as my base IDE to create the projects, to establish version controlling mechanisms and tracking mechanisms, and to add extensions that I can use for building my whole product and for my ease of understanding the project as well.

I created one project named Kilt Kidney Health Care AI based assistant chatbot, and in this chatbot, I had to create three facets of the product. The first is report generation, which is an AI-assisted report in my regional language combined with English. This allowed me to create the whole AI aspect into the product where Windsurf provides me with the whole architecture based scenario in dark mode. Cascade itself gives an option of Sonnet model or Claude Sonnet model. This utilizes my whole power of what I want to build for kidney patients and for the doctor for whom I have taken this project. The second part was generating specific chatbot questions from the particular report, so FAQs could be asked as well. This second layer was orchestrated again inside Windsurf, and the third was to create their whole website. All of these things made Windsurf very useful and very smooth to integrate all of my views and my project architecture was perfectly balanced in what the backend, frontend, and DevOps architecture needs to be integrated. Everything was handled perfectly within my team and the version control mechanism was also perfect enough, behaving exactly as it should when relating different models integration with peer teams.

I have been utilizing Windsurf as my IDE for around one and a half years.

I am currently utilizing Cascade AI as well, which is integrated for users to integrate their code base and project structure folder to the AI agent, which can be a good option to integrate how the agentic mechanisms are evolving towards building the project structure in Windsurf.

Cascade is the best feature I have found currently within different models and their memory storage. I can also try to add voice conversation between the AI and the user, which gives the flexibility to convey my views instead of writing them out and wasting my time.

Whenever I have any kind of problem statement, bug fixing, or debugging that I want to do, I just ask Cascade to look at my particular file which includes all of my integration of code in different languages, whether it is front end or back end. I ask it to check out a bug, do the fix, or even if I want to look out for any terminal issues, I just paste the terminal issue and it will look out for the codes and try to rectify the solution. That is the best feature that Cascade is currently doing. With voice conversation, I can convey my thoughts of what I want to build or what I want to fix. If it is a hotfix, bugfix, or any kind of software development process that I want to integrate, Windsurf works effectively with it.

Another tool I have used is Antigravity. Antigravity is doing deep research with its own agentic based architecture. Currently I am not seeing Windsurf to have deep research capability for any of the products. Its web search capability is not as powerful as other tools are currently performing in the Cascade scenario. A third thing I want to look out for is that its coding capability is not as fast and high as Claude code works out with, and it does not have any kind of articulation of taking the whole output by linking your terminal with Cascade. Antigravity provides that feature. In Antigravity, I can just click on the at rate sign on the terminal that will approach your whole terminal towards your AI agent and I can check the responses of output, what needs to be fixed out, what issues came, or whatever problems need to be solved. If Windsurf can do all these things, it can be the best option as well, as it is very smooth and flexible compared to Antigravity, but these features are currently lacking.

Additional sub agentic mechanisms could be added if solutions could be integrated or if there is capability to work out with multi-agentic based mechanisms by chaining out the thoughts of process.

I have been using the solution for about one and a half years.

Windsurf is stable.

Windsurf has scalability capabilities.

Customer service has been very good.

I was using VS Code. At that moment, even with the growing power of VS Code, I was not utilizing good capability of Copilot itself there and the coding structure was not as perfect as what I checked out with Cascade's Claude Sonnet model and Opus model. So I jumped from that to Windsurf.

The setup was very good. All the features of pricing, setup, costing, and licensing were perfect. Better solutions can be tried for adding subscription features. If not, there is a support team available to work out with.

My team was able to implement Windsurf.

Money and time have both been saved because we were utilizing a lot of time for bug fixing and solving troubleshooting issues. That time has now been reduced and on that regard, employees' time has been reduced as well, which has saved a lot of money. A lot of time has also been saved.

Another tool that I have used is Antigravity. Antigravity is doing deep research with its own agentic based architecture. Currently I am not seeing Windsurf to have deep research capability for any of the products.

I would recommend others to utilize these features and I will try to compare it with other tools. Antigravity can jump out in more responses than Windsurf itself in some instances, but Windsurf works good enough normally for any project architecture.

My overall rating for Windsurf is eight out of ten.

My main use case is to build the development product that I am working on, so I used Windsurf to build 90% of my features. I used the agent present in Windsurf and prompted it to explain my feature, after which Windsurf ensured the feature was being completed. If the output was not optimized, I asked Windsurf to optimize it again.

I have built a platform that helps users create no-code AI agents, where users can simply come and create AI agents. In addition to this, we also provide an API. Using that API, we call multiple LLM providers. Using Windsurf I was able to create the backend of this product. I made a common middleware using which for every different payload, Windsurf is able to convert the current payload into that particular service provider payload and we can call the particular provider. For our users, the user only has to send one payload and we can call any model or any service they want. We are not restricted to a particular payload. This way, we created a proper robust solution.

The best feature is that you can drag code into the chat section and talk to that code, plan according to your features, and update that code. This feature makes my workflow easier by simply dragging my code to the chat box and Windsurf updating it. Windsurf does not hallucinate by simply writing a prompt. If I do not select the code, then Windsurf hallucinates and tries to change different code present in different sections of my repository. After selecting the code, Windsurf gets the proper exact location where it needs to make changes.

When I am building a feature that requires multiple changes throughout the entire repository, I write a complete prompt by selecting the files in which the required changes are meant to be done. This way, Windsurf makes sure that all the changes are done in that particular file only, and it does not hallucinate. I do not need to repeatedly tell Windsurf what to do, as it completes everything in one go.

The development has become significantly faster. Previously, the development was very slow, and after using Windsurf, my development speed increased by 70 to 80 percent. We are able to debug fast, build features fast, and deploy fast. This way, we ensure that our customers get as many features as they want in a very short time. We also ensure that our code quality is properly optimized by using Windsurf. We prompt in such a way that we write the best code that is bug-free and has as low error rate as possible.

There should be an auto model feature just like Cursor. Cursor provides an auto model feature that detects your task and chooses the best model for your task accordingly. This is cost-saving compared to using the highest cost model and will help to achieve better accuracy.

There should be an option where Windsurf should be able to connect to different integrated platforms such as Slack in a very easy way. If I want to build a feature, then I can simply type on my Slack and the feature should be ready. This way we can ensure that more and more features are built and Windsurf can simply return the pull request of the particular feature. A proper streaming should exist between Slack and Windsurf or any other channel.

Windsurf can be improved by introducing a plan method in which the user is asked all the necessary questions and a proper plan is generated with user metrics provided.

Sometimes, Windsurf is not able to develop the feature that we want and hallucinates a lot. The hallucination should be very much less compared to now as the models are evolving day by day. Windsurf should evolve in such a way that it should take custom prompting. It should ensure that an agent.md file is already present in the code base where the user can write how the agent should work, how the agent should react, and what it was explicitly trained for. This way, there will be much less hallucination and more code generation with better quality, and Windsurf will work according to user requirements.

There should be a proper markdown folder specifically designed in Windsurf for each product.

I would like to suggest that there should be one more feature that I am not able to use. Currently, I am not able to work on two repositories at a single time. Suppose I want to develop a feature that requires changes in both my frontend and backend. Windsurf lags in this scenario. It can only have access to the backend or it can only have access to the frontend and not both. If this feature comes, then Windsurf will be top in the market.

I have been using Windsurf for two years.

Previously, Windsurf was not stable. It used to not change a particular file, but now it is stable.

Windsurf can handle a lot of users at a time. Our team is working around 10 to 12 members on a Windsurf account and they are easily able to do it. There is no lagging in that. Windsurf can ensure that multiple users can work simultaneously on a single product.

The customer support was not that good. It is mentioned on their website that you need to mail customer support to contact them. There is not an easy way to reach them. The experience was not so good as we have to wait for them to reply to our mail. I feel this is a very low rating.

Previously, I used Cursor, but Windsurf was better at that time. However, after Cursor evolved in a great way and now it works very fine.

Money is saved and time is saved up to 80 to 90 percent because we are able to deploy fast. Money is also saved as we require fewer developers to work on a particular task. Before using Windsurf, we used to have 20 employees on a team, and now we have 10 employees only.

I would say Windsurf is a better platform at low cost, around $15 per month. Compared to other costs, it is lower. It is a good value. If you know prompting, you can do any task with Windsurf.

I used Cursor as a solution because in Cursor there is a planning method and I can work on two repositories at the same time. Due to this, I would like to switch to Cursor. There are many more AI tools in the market now that are giving better responses compared to Windsurf. AIdrivity, Cursor, and Open Copilot are the top ones that are giving better responses.

There are multiple purposes for which I am using Windsurf. The accuracy of Windsurf agent was not directly good, but after I provided a few things, I received better results. We use it in a public cloud and have bought a plan for Windsurf for our team members, where we can communicate with the entire team using a plan. I would give this review an overall rating of 6.