Sample content — not a real review yet. Every number, name and date here is placeholder text used to design the layout. Nothing on this page was measured.
Cursor vs Windsurf after 60 days on a real Next.js codebase
Same repo, same backlog, two editors. Here is what each one cost in dollars, retries and minutes.
By JasonDraft layout — pending first hands-on review3 min read
This article contains affiliate links. We write the verdict before we see any commission rate. Our policy
The problem
Cursor and Windsurf both ship an agent that edits several files at once, both charge a monthly fee, and both claim to be the fastest way to ship. Their pricing pages don't tell you what a failed attempt costs you in review time, and their demos rarely show a change that touches more than three files.
If you're a solo developer, that gap matters. One bad refactor eats an evening. One wrong subscription runs $180 a year for a tool you open twice a week. So we ran both editors on the same codebase for 60 days and logged every AI-assisted task: what was asked, whether the tests passed, and how long until they did.
How we tested this
- Hands-on
- 60days
- Tested
- 2tools
- Measured
- 4criteria
What we did
Built two client features and one side project (a Next.js 16 + Postgres invoicing app, about 48k lines) with both editors. Switched every 3 days so each editor got 10 blocks on the same backlog. Every AI task went into a spreadsheet: prompt, model, accepted or rejected, retries, minutes until CI was green.
MacBook Pro M3 Pro, 36 GB. Paid Pro plans on both. Default model routing left on.
Products & how we got them
- CursorPro, $20/moPaid by us
- WindsurfPro, $15/moPaid by us
Criteria & how we measured
- First-attempt success. Tests pass with no manual edits. 59 tasks per editor.
- Cost per accepted task. Plan fee plus overage, divided by tasks I kept.
- Multi-file refactors. 6 refactors touching 5+ files per editor. Counted full rollbacks.
- Time to green. Median minutes from prompt to passing CI.
Limitations
- One developer, one stack (TypeScript and Next.js). No Python, mobile or embedded work.
- Both vendors changed their default models during the 60 days; results reflect a mix.
- Pricing checked September 27, 2026 and may have changed since.
What we measured
| Tool | Plan price/mo · Vendor-published | First-attempt successHands-on | Cost per accepted taskHands-on | Refactor rollbacksof 6 · Hands-on | Median time to greenmin · Hands-on | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cursor Pro | $20 | 71%(best in this column) | $0.51 | 1(best in this column) | 11(best in this column) | Visit CursorAffiliate |
| Windsurf Pro | $15(best in this column) | 63% | $0.29(best in this column) | 3 | 14 | Visit WindsurfAffiliate |
Where Cursor pulled ahead: changes that span many files
The gap showed up on the 12 refactors that touched five or more files: renaming a domain concept across the API, the schema and the UI, or moving auth from a helper into middleware. Cursor needed a full rollback once. Windsurf needed three.
The pattern was consistent. Windsurf finished the edits quickly, then left one stale import or one mismatched type three folders away. Finding it cost 15 to 25 minutes each time, which is why its median time to green ended up 3 minutes behind.
- Refactor rollbacks
- 1 vs 3
- of 6 refactors each
- Median time to green
- 11 vs 14 min
- Cursor vs Windsurf
Where Windsurf won: price and quiet defaults
Windsurf's plan costs $5 less and I never hit an overage in 30 days of use. Cursor's included requests ran out in week three of the month, and the overage added $8. That is where most of the 43% gap in cost per accepted task comes from.
Windsurf was also less noisy: fewer unrequested edits to files I hadn't mentioned. On tickets that touched one or two files, that made review faster than Cursor's more ambitious diffs.
What the numbers hide
A 71% first-attempt rate does not mean 71% of your work is done for you. The other 29% still cost me review time, and I count that time in the median above. It also does not measure the tasks I never tried to delegate, like anything that needed production database access.
Best for
- You change 5+ files per taskCursor1 rollback in 6 refactors, against 3 for Windsurf.
- Your tooling budget is capped at $15 a monthWindsurf$0.29 per accepted task, and no overage in 30 days of use.
- You mostly edit one file at a timeNeitherAutocomplete you already pay for covers it. Neither editor beat it by more than 2 minutes a task.
The Verdict
Cursor if you refactor across many files. Windsurf if $15 a month is your ceiling.
Pick by your situation
| If | Then | Because |
|---|---|---|
| You change 5+ files per task | Choose Cursor | It rolled back 1 refactor in 6. Windsurf rolled back 3 in 6. |
| Your budget is capped at $15 a month | Choose Windsurf | $0.29 per accepted task, and I never hit overage in 30 days. |
| You mostly edit one file at a time | Keep your current editor | Neither saved more than 2 minutes on a single-file task. |
If you change 5+ files per task
Choose Cursor
It rolled back 1 refactor in 6. Windsurf rolled back 3 in 6.
If your budget is capped at $15 a month
Choose Windsurf
$0.29 per accepted task, and I never hit overage in 30 days.
If you mostly edit one file at a time
Keep your current editor
Neither saved more than 2 minutes on a single-file task.
Cursor's edge is reliability on large changes: 71% first-attempt success against 63%, and a median 11 minutes to green against 14. Windsurf's edge is price. It cost 43% less per accepted task because I never paid overage. Neither is a clear win. Pick on how big your typical change is, not on which demo looked better.
- Confidence
- medium
- Revisit if
- Either vendor changes plan pricing or ships a new default model.