Cursor

What do you like best about the product?

Cursor provides a UI that’s very similar to VS Code, so I can use it without any difficulty. In Cursor, I’ve been using the AI agent, and it completes my code in a few seconds. If any bug comes up, I just tell the AI by giving a prompt, and it fixes the bug within a second. Basically, I give a prompt and Cursor completes my task. I also like that whenever Cursor wants to run any command or perform a command-related task, it asks me first, and then I can approve or reject it.

What do you dislike about the product?

They provide only a very limited number of tokens and an AI agent for code completion, but they don’t offer other tools. It also requires a cursro login. Meanwhile, antigravity provides much more AI with higher limits, along with code suggestions as you type. antigravity is free, while cursro does not provide this feature.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

We needed a way to leverage AI automation for coding tasks without sacrificing security or operational control in our environment. Cursor addresses this by offering intelligent, command-focused task automation while still keeping a clear human-in-the-loop approach. When the AI agent proposes running system commands, it asks for manual approval or rejection first, which helps keep our development workflow fast, safe, and transparent.

What do you like best about the product?

I like that Cursor puts the AI agent inside the actual editor, so I don’t have to copy code back and forth. It can see the project files, recent chats, and what I’m working on, then change multiple files for me. Tab completion and the agent chat save a lot of time on routine edits, debugging, and explaining unfamiliar code.

What do you dislike about the product?

The main downside is that agent usage can eat through credits quickly, so I have to watch the quota on longer tasks. Sometimes the agent changes more files than I asked for, and I need to review the diff carefully. On larger projects it can also feel slower, and long chats occasionally lose context, so I have to start a new conversation.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Before Cursor, I had to jump between the editor and a separate chatbot, copying code back and forth. That was slow and easy to lose context. Cursor keeps coding and the AI agent in one place, so it can read the project, edit files, and help debug without me switching tools. I spend less time on boilerplate and searching through unfamiliar code, and more time reviewing changes and finishing the actual task.

What do you like best about the product?

I use Cursor at my organizer for writing code, and it's like our default IDE. Cursor helps me analyze the code, write it better, debug and fix bugs, and even fix the build. I find it indispensable for coding. I really like its ease of effect, with the IDE and chat being inbuilt, so there's no need to switch back and forth. It creates the context and remembers everything, and it's fast, allowing me to switch models easily.

What do you dislike about the product?

So there is a thing like I have integrated Cursor with my Jira and conference MCP server. But almost every time, it loses the context and asks me again to link them, and it takes time. If there are more connectors that we can connect the Cursor to and sometimes, like, the chat window gets freeze.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

I use Cursor to analyze and debug code, help fix bugs and build processes, and it simplifies code writing. It feels essential to my coding.

What do you like best about the product?

I appreciate Cursor's natural language interaction. Setting it up was smooth and straightforward.

What do you dislike about the product?

I feel Cursor could improve on better requirements interpretation.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Cursor helps me with unclear technical requirements by creating command line utilities from plain English descriptions.

What do you like best about the product?

The AI integration in Cursor feels genuinely woven into the coding workflow instead of bolted on as an afterthought. Inline code generation and chat-based editing pull context from the whole codebase, not just the open file, so suggestions actually match existing architecture and coding patterns rather than generic boilerplate. Tab-to-accept autocomplete is fast and often predicts multi-line edits correctly, saving a lot of repetitive typing during daily development.
The interface stays close to a familiar VS Code layout, so there's almost no learning curve coming from that ecosystem — getting started took minutes rather than a real onboarding process. Extensions and settings carry over smoothly, and the editor stays responsive even in larger projects with many open files. Integration with existing Git workflows and terminal usage feels seamless, and referencing specific files or symbols directly in a prompt makes debugging and refactoring noticeably quicker than switching to a separate AI tool.
On pricing, the value holds up well against the time it saves — faster iteration and fewer context switches easily justify the subscription cost for a small technical team. Support has been reliable when needed, with documentation that covers most common issues, so there's rarely a wait to keep moving. Overall it's become a core part of the day-to-day coding process.

What do you dislike about the product?

Pricing gets frustrating once usage scales — the fast request limits on the standard plan get consumed quickly on larger codebases, and hitting that ceiling mid-task means either slowing down to conserve requests or upgrading to a higher tier sooner than expected. More transparency around real-time usage consumption would help, since right now it's often only clear after the fact.
Performance can also dip on very large repositories — indexing takes noticeably longer, and the context window occasionally doesn't fully capture relevant files scattered across a big project, so suggestions miss dependencies living outside the immediate working directory. That means double-checking generated code more carefully on bigger builds than on smaller ones.
The AI still occasionally hallucinates function signatures or library APIs that don't actually exist, especially with less common packages or internal libraries it hasn't seen much of, so verification against actual documentation remains necessary rather than optional. Multi-file refactors sometimes need manual cleanup afterward since the model doesn't always catch every downstream reference that needs updating.
Onboarding new team members to the AI-specific features (custom rules, context management, model selection) takes more explanation than just picking up a standard editor, since getting real value out of it requires understanding how to prompt and scope context effectively. Minor learning curve, but it's there.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Cursor is solving the friction of context-switching between writing code and getting AI assistance — instead of copying code into a separate chat window and pasting suggestions back, everything happens inline within the actual editor. This has meaningfully sped up day-to-day development, especially for repetitive tasks like writing boilerplate, generating test cases, and drafting initial implementations of well-understood patterns.
It's also cut down significantly on time spent debugging, since the AI can scan across multiple files to spot the source of an error rather than manually tracing through the codebase file by file. For a small technical team without dedicated resources for every specialization, this has been a real force multiplier — junior or less experienced developers can move faster on unfamiliar parts of the stack because the AI helps bridge knowledge gaps in real time, whether that's an unfamiliar library, a new framework pattern, or legacy code someone else wrote.
Refactoring large codebases has become considerably less tedious too. What used to mean manually updating dozens of related files can now be scoped and handled in a single pass with AI assistance, with far fewer missed references than doing it by hand. On the documentation side, having AI help generate and maintain inline comments and docstrings has improved code readability across the team, which matters a lot given multiple people touch the same codebase over time.
The net benefit has been faster iteration cycles overall — less time spent on mechanical, repetitive work means more time available for actual architecture decisions, business logic, and problem-solving that requires real judgment.

What do you like best about the product?

Code generation, debug issues and ask questions about your project

What do you dislike about the product?

a bit expensive and some times it took more token then required

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

It wrote a complete code of live activity in my swiftui project with actions and response

What do you like best about the product?

What I like most about Cursor is that it feels like an IDE first and an AI tool second, which means I'm the guy in the chair. The AI is deeply integrated into the development workflow instead of feeling like a separate chatbot. Features like editing across multiple files, understanding the codebase context and making targeted changes save a lot time compared to constantly copying code back and forth.

I also appreciate that cursor doesn't try to replace the developer. It speeds up repetitive work, helps me navigate unfamiliar code, and lets me stay focused on solving the actual problem. It strikes a good balance between automation and keeping me in control, which makes it something i can use throughhout the day rather than occasionally

What do you dislike about the product?

Sometimes the AI makes broad changes when i want a small, targeted edit. It can also lose context in very large or complex codebases.

Occasionally, the suggested code looks correct but misses subtle project specific details. I would also like more transparency into why it chooses edits or approaches

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Cursor reduces the time spent on repetitive coding tasks like refactoring, debugging and boilerplate generation.

It understands the project context, so I spend less time explaining my code.

This lets me stay focused on solving problems instead of switching between tools.

As a result, I'm able to build features faster and maintain better development flow.

What do you like best about the product?

That the AI is embedded in the core of the editor and not attached with a side widget. The autocomplete with Tab is super fast and being able to launch refactorings that affect multiple files at once from Composer saves you a lot of time. Being a fork of VS Code, the learning curve is zero; you open your workspace, it indexes the project, and you're working from the first minute.

What do you dislike about the product?

RAM consumption gets spammed quite a bit when indexing large repositories, and sometimes the credit system falls short if you push Composer hard daily. It would also be cool if the context management allowed for a bit more manual fine-tuning of the files to ignore.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

It takes the heavy carpentry off my shoulders: writing repetitive code, assembling types, and searching for documentation. By indexing the entire project, I can request refactorings that touch multiple files at once without having to manually copy and paste context. In the end, it translates into developing much faster and focusing on logic and architecture instead of wasting time on mechanical tasks.

Regarding integrations, being a direct fork of VS Code, you can import all your extensions, themes, and previous configuration with a click, and it connects very well with GitHub/GitLab repositories and external documentation through the option to add custom docs. In terms of ROI, the impact is immediate: with the monthly subscription, you recover those work hours in the first few days of use just with the time you save from writing repetitive code and migrating files.

In terms of support and onboarding, the curve is flat. The onboarding literally takes two minutes because it brings all your VS Code configuration at once, without having to relearn shortcuts or reinstall tools. On the support side, the community in its forum is super active and they release updates almost every week, fixing bugs and incorporating the latest models as they come out, so you never get stuck with an obsolete version.

What do you like best about the product?

I use Cursor for coding HTML apps and Android/iOS apps, including Whisper translation apps. I like that it's really clean and pro. It offers a large range of models. I like the model composer because it's fast. The initial setup was easy and fast.

What do you dislike about the product?

I don't like that you hit your monthly limits in an hour. The rate limits are a big issue, and I think increasing them would really help. Also, even though Cursor is popular, I felt that Antigravity was better.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

I use Cursor for coding HTML and mobile apps. It offers a large range of models.

What do you like best about the product?

İ really like Cursor's quota because, thanks to its own models and the agreements it has made with xai, the models hardly use up my plan's quota. i'm pleased with how well it uses the agent tools. i like the composer 2.5 model because it's really great and very affordable. it offers me a lot of productivity on a budget of around $20. i think the single monthly quota system is great.

What do you dislike about the product?

I find the chat history reappearing annoying even after I've deleted them, and I think the code editor optimization is poor, it's even terrible. I constantly deal with deleting chats for no reason, and it slows down significantly when opening long folders, unlike Visual Studio Code which is really fast.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Cursor offers me great productivity with minimal costs, but I'm frustrated with the persistent deleted chat history and the poor code editor optimization.