Cursor vs Sourcegraph Cody

Sourcegraph Cody and Cursor take fundamentally different approaches: Cody is a codebase intelligence layer that plugs into your existing editor, while Cursor is a full AI-native IDE that acts autonomously. Cody's recent Code Finder Beta uses agentic search to return exact files and line ranges faster and cheaper than an agent's own search — a boon for large repos. Deep Search with auto-compaction and a subagent keeps context windows efficient. Agentic Batch Changes (public beta) automates large-scale migrations across hundreds of repos. Cursor counters with Composer for long-horizon multi-file tasks, cloud agents in sandboxed environments, and a Slack integration that plans before acting. Cursor's newest Cursor Router (Teams/Enterprise) intelligently routes requests to models—optimizing for Intelligence, Balance, or Cost. Cursor also adds Design Mode with visual prompts and mobile apps (iOS/iPad) for remote supervision. For integrations, Cody ties into Sourcegraph's ecosystem (Code Search, MCP server) and supports VS Code/JetBrains; Cursor offers Slack, GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Vercel, and Snowflake. If your pain is finding the right code context, Cody wins; if it's getting features built end-to-end, Cursor leads.

Both are freemium, but pricing paths diverge. Cody's freemium gives basic access, with enterprise plans aimed at organizations needing RBAC and admin controls — no public per-seat price in the data. Cursor's paid tier starts at $20/mo per user, which includes Pro features; the new Cursor Start plan (₹649/month) targets India with local pricing and UPI support — a smart regional play. Cursor Router and automations are reserved for Teams/Enterprise, so expect higher costs for those. Cody's enterprise focus likely means custom pricing; the value prop is deep codebase integration and security features like Context Filters and RBAC. Evaluators should consider: Cody is cheaper to try for multi-repo context search, but Cursor's agentic features justify its price for teams automating full workflows. If budget is tight, both have free tiers, but Cursor's not_for note warns against it for strict budgets — Cody's free tier may suffice for smaller teams.