VerdictPal
Join
VerdictPal · editorial desk · updated 5 Sep 2026VerdictPal
Compare · Head-to-head

Pick two tools. See the diff.

Stat bars are editorial heuristics, methodology linked — not a fake benchmark leaderboard. Put two dossiers side by side and see where each one breaks.
ToolsModels

Compare · Tool A / Tool B·Head-to-head

CursorvsOpenCode

In the Build & code set, OpenCode edges ahead overall (editorial fit 95 vs 81). OpenCode wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, speed, and value for money; the rest is a wash. Both pass our quality gate. The right pick is the one whose strengths match the job you're trying to do.

Cursor · avg
65
wins 1 of 16
OpenCode · avg
77
wins 13 of 16
Fields differ
12
of 16 dossier rows
Receipts
18
sources + bench notes

Checked 2026-06-07 · Cursor·Checked 2026-06-15 · OpenCode

Dossier fields

Sixteen fields, side by side.

No.FieldCursorOpenCode
01Status · Editorial quality gateFlagshipFlagship
02Editorial fit · 0–100 score81 / 10095 / 100
03CategoryBuild & codeBuild & code
04Primary surfaceProsumer SaaSLocal app
05Modalities
  • Code
  • Text
  • Code
  • Text
06Role in a stackAI-native code editor and agentic refactor workspaceOpen-source terminal coding agent and model-agnostic harness
07Best for
  • Developers already living in VS Code who want Tab, Chat, and Agent in one editor
  • Repo-wide refactors where multi-file diffs must be reviewed before merge
  • Teams that need SAML/OIDC, centralized billing, usage analytics, team-wide Privacy Mode, and admin controls
  • Students eligible for one free Pro year who can still run tests and read generated code
  • Developers who want an inspectable open-source agent instead of a closed IDE-only copilot
  • Teams that need Copilot, ChatGPT, Anthropic BYOK, Zen, Go, or local models in one harness
  • Students and researchers on a budget using Go or free Zen models with spend caps
  • Privacy-sensitive repos where vendor storage claims matter — read Zen model exceptions first
08Avoid if
  • You cannot enable Privacy Mode or get approval before sending sensitive code to AI providers
  • You need deterministic flat pricing with no usage-based overage exposure
  • You want a headless agent SDK rather than a human-in-the-loop editor
  • You tend to accept green-looking multi-file diffs without running tests
  • You need a polished GUI IDE with Tab-as-primary workflow — Cursor may fit better
  • You will run Build mode on production branches without tests, Plan review, or /undo discipline
  • You cannot track Zen auto-reload ($20 when balance hits $5) and monthly workspace caps
  • You need guaranteed EU-only inference on every model without admin model allowlists
09Capabilities tracked
  • Tab completions
  • inline edits
  • Chat
  • Agent
  • MCPs
  • skills
  • hooks
  • rules
  • cloud agents
  • Bugbot
  • individual usage pools
  • Teams SSO/admin/analytics/privacy mode
  • Enterprise SCIM/audit/access controls/service accounts/AI code tracking API
  • curl / npm / brew / Docker install
  • Terminal TUI, desktop app beta, IDE extension
  • Plan mode (read-only) and Build mode (writes)
  • /init project analysis and AGENTS.md generation
  • LSP auto-load for typed context
  • Multi-session parallel agents
  • /share session links, /undo, /redo
  • GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT account login
  • 75+ providers via Models.dev and /connect
  • OpenCode Zen pay-as-you-go gateway (BYOK compatible)
  • OpenCode Go subscription for open models ($5 first month)
  • Custom commands, themes, formatters, MCP
10Failure modes · Documented, not buried
  • Agent edits can break tests/security despite clean diffs
  • Usage pools and on-demand billing are hard to forecast
  • Privacy Mode off can expose sensitive code context
  • Model/provider routing creates data and cost differences
  • MCP/cloud agents add permission and execution boundaries
  • Students may substitute AI edits for understanding
  • Build mode can apply diffs that pass typecheck but fail course rubrics or security review
  • Zen free/promo models may retain data for training — Big Pickle, DeepSeek Flash Free, Nemotron Free, etc.
  • Auto-reload and monthly caps interact confusingly when balance drops below $5
  • Multi-session parallelism can stomp the same files without branch discipline
  • Desktop app is still beta — terminal remains the most documented surface
  • Model deprecation table moves fast — pinned configs break on schedule
11Evidence levelEditorial · hands-onEditorial · hands-on
12Sources verified · Receipts on the dossier
13Benchmark entriesNone recorded
  • Run /init + Plan mode on a TypeScript monorepo, then Build the smallest feature with Go-plan DeepSeek V4 Flash.
    Desk hands-on: Plan output matched repo conventions after AGENTS.md; Build diffs were reviewable with /undo available.
14Alternatives tracked
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Windsurf
  • Cline
  • Zed
  • Factory
  • Cursor
  • Claude Code
  • Command Code
  • Factory
  • Warp
15Pricing checked2026-06-072026-06-15
16Last verified2026-06-072026-06-15
16 metrics

Sixteen numbers, one shared midline.

CursorvsOpenCode

In the Build & code set, OpenCode edges ahead overall (editorial fit 95 vs 81). OpenCode wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, speed, and value for money; the rest is a wash. Both pass our quality gate. The right pick is the one whose strengths match the job you're trying to do.

  1. Editorial fit
    Cursor81OpenCode95
  2. Source quality
    Cursor60OpenCode71
  3. Citation honesty
    Cursor58OpenCode70
  4. Privacy controls
    Cursor40OpenCode56
  5. Value for money
    Cursor72OpenCode93
  6. Speed
    Cursor50OpenCode80
  7. Integration
    Cursor72OpenCode75
  8. Onboarding
    Cursor50OpenCode80
  9. Reliability
    Cursor76OpenCode76
  10. Feature depth
    Cursor100OpenCode94
  11. Data portability
    Cursor55OpenCode73
  12. Transparency
    Cursor100OpenCode100
  13. Ecosystem reach
    Cursor72OpenCode75
  14. Documentation
    Cursor60OpenCode71
  15. Independence
    Cursor40OpenCode56
  16. Affordability
    Cursor55OpenCode65
Cursor · avg 65 · wins 1 of 160avg 77 · wins 13 of 16 · OpenCode
EvidenceCursor 0 · OpenCode 4
  1. 01Editorial fit
    81
    95
  2. 02Source quality
    60
    71
  3. 03Citation honesty
    58
    70
  4. 04Privacy controls
    40
    56
PrivacyCursor 0 · OpenCode 4
  1. 05Value for money
    72
    93
  2. 06Speed
    50
    80
  3. 07Integration
    72
    75
  4. 08Onboarding
    50
    80
CapabilityCursor 1 · OpenCode 1
  1. 09Reliability
    76
    76
  2. 10Feature depth
    100
    94
  3. 11Data portability
    55
    73
  4. 12Transparency
    100
    100
Cost & fitCursor 0 · OpenCode 4
  1. 13Ecosystem reach
    72
    75
  2. 14Documentation
    60
    71
  3. 15Independence
    40
    56
  4. 16Affordability
    55
    65
TOOL A · Cursor
Build & code
Cursor
81/100
ROLEAI-native code editor and agentic refactor workspace
Editorial fit
81
Source quality
60
Citation honesty
58
Privacy controls
40
Value for money
72
Speed
50
FREEHobby
$20/MOPro
$60/MOPro+
FlagshipVerified 2026-06-07VP·METHOD

AI-native code editor and agentic refactor workspace — VS Code-compatible AI editor with Tab completion, Chat, Agent, MCPs, skills, hooks, cloud agents, Bugbot, Privacy Mode, and team/enterprise governance controls.

TOOL B · OpenCode
Build & code
OpenCode
95/100
ROLEOpen-source terminal coding agent and model-agnostic harness
Editorial fit
95
Source quality
71
Citation honesty
70
Privacy controls
56
Value for money
93
Speed
80
FREEOpen source
$10/MOGo
CUSTOMZen
FlagshipVerified 2026-06-15VP·METHOD

Open-source terminal coding agent and model-agnostic harness — Open-source AI coding agent for terminal, desktop, and IDE — 75+ model providers, Plan/Build modes, LSP support, optional OpenCode Go ($10/mo) and Zen pay-as-you-go gateway.

Privacy facets

Where each tool is actually private.

CursorOpenCode
Training on your dataUnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.UnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.
EU data residencyUnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.UnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.
SOC 2 attestationUnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.UnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.
Local-first by defaultUnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.UnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.
Capability split

What each tool does uniquely.

Only Cursor13

  • Tab completions
  • inline edits
  • Chat
  • Agent
  • MCPs
  • skills
  • hooks
  • rules
  • cloud agents
  • Bugbot
  • individual usage pools
  • Teams SSO/admin/analytics/privacy mode
  • Enterprise SCIM/audit/access controls/service accounts/AI code tracking API

Shared0

No overlap detected.

Only OpenCode12

  • curl / npm / brew / Docker install
  • Terminal TUI, desktop app beta, IDE extension
  • Plan mode (read-only) and Build mode (writes)
  • /init project analysis and AGENTS.md generation
  • LSP auto-load for typed context
  • Multi-session parallel agents
  • /share session links, /undo, /redo
  • GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT account login
  • 75+ providers via Models.dev and /connect
  • OpenCode Zen pay-as-you-go gateway (BYOK compatible)
  • OpenCode Go subscription for open models ($5 first month)
  • Custom commands, themes, formatters, MCP
Failure modes

Where each tool breaks.

Cursor

  • Agent edits can break tests/security despite clean diffs
  • Usage pools and on-demand billing are hard to forecast
  • Privacy Mode off can expose sensitive code context
  • Model/provider routing creates data and cost differences
  • MCP/cloud agents add permission and execution boundaries
  • Students may substitute AI edits for understanding

OpenCode

  • Build mode can apply diffs that pass typecheck but fail course rubrics or security review
  • Zen free/promo models may retain data for training — Big Pickle, DeepSeek Flash Free, Nemotron Free, etc.
  • Auto-reload and monthly caps interact confusingly when balance drops below $5
  • Multi-session parallelism can stomp the same files without branch discipline
  • Desktop app is still beta — terminal remains the most documented surface
  • Model deprecation table moves fast — pinned configs break on schedule
Pricing

Pulled straight from each dossier.

Cursor

Build & code
  • FREEHobby
  • $20/MOPro
  • $60/MOPro+

raw · Hobby free · Individual Pro USD 20/mo, with Pro+/Ultra higher-capacity tiers · Teams Standard USD 40 monthly or USD 32 annual per seat · Teams Premium USD 120 monthly or USD 96 annual per seat · Enterprise custom · eligible students get one free Pro year.

OpenCode

Build & code
  • FREEOpen source
  • $10/MOGo
  • CUSTOMZen

raw · OSS agent free · BYOK any provider · OpenCode Go $5 first month then $10/mo (open models, generous limits) · Zen pay-as-you-go credits (from $20 top-up, auto-reload at $5 balance) · team workspaces in beta · card fees passed at cost (4.4% + $0.30)

Verdict

Which tool to actually pick.

In the Build & code set, OpenCode edges ahead overall (editorial fit 95 vs 81). OpenCode wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, speed, and value for money; the rest is a wash. Both pass our quality gate. The right pick is the one whose strengths match the job you're trying to do.

Open Cursor's dossierOpen OpenCode's dossier
Try Cursor ↗Try OpenCode ↗

Questions this comparison answers

Every answer below is assembled from the dated fields on this page. Nothing is written separately for search.

Should you use Cursor or OpenCode?

In the Build & code set, OpenCode edges ahead overall (editorial fit 95 vs 81). OpenCode wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, speed, and value for money; the rest is a wash. Both pass our quality gate. The right pick is the one whose strengths match the job you're trying to do.

What can Cursor do that OpenCode cannot?

Capabilities documented on the Cursor tool but not the OpenCode tool:

  • Tab completions
  • inline edits
  • Chat
  • Agent
  • MCPs
  • skills
  • hooks
  • rules
  • cloud agents
  • Bugbot
  • individual usage pools
  • Teams SSO/admin/analytics/privacy mode
  • Enterprise SCIM/audit/access controls/service accounts/AI code tracking API

What can OpenCode do that Cursor cannot?

Capabilities documented on the OpenCode tool but not the Cursor tool:

  • curl / npm / brew / Docker install
  • Terminal TUI, desktop app beta, IDE extension
  • Plan mode (read-only) and Build mode (writes)
  • /init project analysis and AGENTS.md generation
  • LSP auto-load for typed context
  • Multi-session parallel agents
  • /share session links, /undo, /redo
  • GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT account login
  • 75+ providers via Models.dev and /connect
  • OpenCode Zen pay-as-you-go gateway (BYOK compatible)
  • OpenCode Go subscription for open models ($5 first month)
  • Custom commands, themes, formatters, MCP

Is Cursor or OpenCode cheaper?

Cursor: Hobby Free · Pro $20/mo · Pro+ $60/mo · Ultra $200/mo · Teams $40/mo · Enterprise Custom. OpenCode: Open source Free · Go $10/mo · Zen Custom · Teams workspace Free.

How do Cursor and OpenCode score against each other?

On editorial fit, Cursor scores 81 out of 100 and OpenCode scores 95 out of 100. The score is a fit judgement for source-heavy research work, not a quality ranking — read both dossiers before you pick.