Cursor vs Greptile
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings
At a glance
| Dimension | Cursor | Greptile |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Free tier; paid plans from $20/mo | Free tier; 50 credits/mo free, then $1/credit |
| Core Focus | Autonomous coding agent & AI IDE | AI code review & validation |
| Key Feature | Cloud agents: parallel VMs & live preview | TREX: test writing & execution in sandbox |
| Integration | Slack, GitHub, JetBrains, Xcode | GitHub, GitLab, MCP |
| Deployment | Cloud-based, requires internet | Self-hosted & SOC 2 available |
If you're a team that already produces code and needs a rigorous validation layer, Greptile is the safety net — it learns your standards and runs tests to catch what static review misses. If you want to delegate whole features from idea to deployment, Cursor's cloud agents and origin hosting make it the more complete builder. Pick Greptile to protect quality, Cursor to accelerate creation.
Cursor is the agentic coding IDE that plans, builds, tests and ships software across desktop, CLI, Slack, mobile and cloud agents.
Visit Website
AI code review agent that tests every pull request against a full graph index of your codebase before it ships.
Visit WebsiteFeature-by-feature
Greptile is laser-focused on review: it builds a graph index of your codebase and uses a swarm of parallel agents for multi-file impact analysis beyond the diff. It enforces custom rules in plain English and learns standards from PR comments. Its standout TREX layer writes and runs tests in a sandbox, providing evidence like logs and videos — catching runtime bugs static analysis misses. Greptile also pairs with Opengrep and SCA for security, detects AI-authored PRs with model inversion, and can auto-approve low-risk PRs. It integrates with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and Devin via MCP, and offers a Zapier connector for workflow automation.
Cursor is an AI-native IDE and agent platform. Composer handles multi-file edits, and cloud agents run autonomously in sandboxed VMs with parallel execution, now able to start from scratch without a linked repo, save to Origin (its new GitHub alternative), and show live browser previews. Automations schedule always-on agents on triggers like CI failures. Slack integration lets teams plan and review PRs without leaving chat. Cursor is model-agnostic, with access to Grok 4.6, GPT-5.6 Sol, Opus 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and BYO models.
Greptile is a validation layer; Cursor is a generation engine. They complement rather than compete, and Greptile's one-click fix to Cursor (and others) shows intentional interoperability.
Pricing compared
Greptile follows a freemium model: you get 50 credits free per month for reviews, after which you set a dollar cap for additional spend, billed at $1/credit. This credit system can surprise heavy users, but the cap gives you control. Cursor also starts free, but individual paid plans begin at $20/mo and teams at $40/user/mo — a significant recurring cost per developer. If you only need review, Greptile's free tier may cover you. If you want an autonomous agent, Cursor's pricing reflects its broader capability. Note Cursor's Origin hosting is in early beta on all paid plans, and its recent acquisition by SpaceX hasn't changed pricing terms as of the latest news.
Who should pick which
- Engineering team using AI coding agentsPick: Greptile
You're generating code fast with tools like Cursor; Greptile acts as your validation layer, catching bugs and style issues before they hit production, and it even detects agent-authored PRs.
- Startup wanting to ship features end-to-end autonomouslyPick: Cursor
Cursor's cloud agents can start from scratch, build, test, and demo features with live previews — perfect for rapid prototyping and reducing manual coding.
- Team with strict compliance needsPick: Greptile
Greptile offers self-hosted, SOC 2 compliant code review, keeping your code and review data on-premises if needed.
- Distributed team collaborating via SlackPick: Cursor
Cursor's Slack integration enables plan-before-acting and PR review directly in your chat flow, reducing context switching.
- Mature team focused on code quality over speedPick: Greptile
If you prioritize standards enforcement and catching multi-file logic bugs, Greptile's learning and execution layer gives you deep, evidence-backed reviews.
Frequently Asked Questions
Cursor vs Greptile: which should you choose?
If you're a team that already produces code and needs a rigorous validation layer, Greptile is the safety net — it learns your standards and runs tests to catch what static review misses. If you want to delegate whole features from idea to deployment, Cursor's cloud agents and origin hosting make it the more complete builder. Pick Greptile to protect quality, Cursor to accelerate creation.
Can I use both Greptile and Cursor together?
Yes, Greptile explicitly offers a one-click fix to Cursor, so you can have Cursor generate code and then use Greptile as your review gate.
Which tool supports self-hosting?
Greptile offers self-hosted options with SOC 2 compliance; Cursor's cloud agents and router require internet, so it's not suitable for air-gapped environments.
Does Greptile write tests?
Yes, TREX autonomously writes and runs tests in a sandbox, providing evidence like logs and videos to catch runtime bugs.
Can Cursor work without a repository?
Yes, as of the latest update, Cursor's cloud agents can start from scratch without a connected SCM, save to Origin, and show live browser previews.
How does pricing compare for a small team?
Greptile's free tier covers 50 credits/mo, which may suffice for low-volume review; Cursor's per-user pricing starts at $20/mo, so costs scale with team size.
More Cursor or Greptile comparisons
If you want an agent that plans, builds, tests, and ships features autonomously—especially for engineering teams ready to supervise cloud agents and automate CI fixes—pick Cursor. If you need deep doc
If you live in Figma and need pixel-true UI code fast, Locofy will save you hours of CSS drudgery—just budget for manual tweaks. But if you want an AI teammate that takes a Slack message all the way t
If you're a founder or PM who wants to turn an idea into a deployable app by chatting, Lovable is the fastest path — no code, one-click deploy, and connectors to data warehouses. If you're an engineer
If you need to orchestrate multiple agents across local and cloud environments with shared context, Codeium is your command center—especially with its free SWE-1.6 tier. But if you want an AI-first ID
If your team lives in large, multi-repo codebases and needs deep code understanding with enterprise controls, Sourcegraph Cody is the pragmatic pick. But if you want an AI that takes a feature from id
Pick Cursor if you want an agent that autonomously builds and ships features across IDE, CLI, and Slack — it's more accessible and flexible for startups and modern teams. Choose Augment Code if you're
Explore each tool further
Browse these categories
One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.
Last reviewed: August 29, 2026