Compare / Continue vs Cursor
Continue vs Cursor
The remaining open IDE agent versus the closed default.
This is a structured comparison of two listings, not a score. Read both
takes. Fields were last checked on each listing’s verifiedAt.
| Continue Verified | Cursor Verified | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | Open IDE agents, acquired by Cursor, source still public. | An agent-native IDE with cloud agents that run in isolated VMs. |
| Layers | execution | orchestration, execution, sandboxing, verification |
| Model independence | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Deployment | Self-hosted | Cloud |
| Open source | Yes | No |
| License | Apache-2.0 (see repo) | Proprietary |
| Pricing model | Mixed | Mixed |
Continue
Editorial take
Continue is the listing to keep watching after the Cursor acquisition: the question is whether the open extension stays a real product or becomes a compatibility shim. As of this verifiedAt it still documents BYO models and a public repo. It is not a factory. It is an IDE agent you can point at Ollama. Do not confuse it with Cursor’s closed cloud runtime.
Cursor
Editorial take
Cursor is the most complete agent IDE in wide use, and it is no longer "just Tab." Cloud Agents, environment snapshots, hooks, and team sharing make it a plausible execution and sandbox layer for a factory. It is not a factory by itself. Orchestration is still mostly "start an agent," verification is still mostly "the agent ran the tests," and the product is closed, cloud-hosted, and priced as seats plus metered model use. BYOK works in the IDE because the client can attach a key; Cursor staff have said Cloud Agents and Automations do not persist user keys, so those runs bill through Cursor. Treat Auto as a convenience router, not model independence you control.