HumanAmplify.AI

Github Copilot vs Cursor: which AI coding assistant is better? - Video Insight

Steve (Builder.io)

Fullscreen

summarize
tldr

The video compares GitHub Copilot and Cursor, concluding that Cursor outperforms Copilot in speed and accuracy for coding assistance.

The video presents a comparative analysis of GitHub Copilot and Cursor, focusing on their features for coding assistance. The review emphasizes that while Copilot has made significant advancements, particularly with a free tier and new multi-file editing tools, it struggles with efficiency and accuracy compared to Cursor. Specific tests demonstrate Copilot's shortcomings in correctly executing tasks such as bug fixes and updating code, which Cursor handles more effectively and quickly. Despite some newly added functionalities and the option of choosing different AI models, the narrator expresses disappointment in Copilot’s performance and overall usability, leading to a personal preference for Cursor — a more reliable and time-saving tool for coding tasks.

Content rate: B

The content provides a thorough examination of two popular coding tools, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses through detailed personal tests and experiences. Although the review is opinionated, it includes substantial evidence regarding the performance of both tools.

coding AI comparison productivity

Claims:

Claim: GitHub Copilot struggles significantly with code updates and bug fixes compared to Cursor.

Evidence: The video details multiple instances of Copilot failing to properly update code or find relevant files, particularly in tasks like fixing client-side routing.

Counter evidence: Some users may have had positive experiences with Copilot, citing improvements in its functionalities and updates over time.

Claim rating: 8 / 10

Claim: Cursor provides faster and more accurate code generation than GitHub Copilot.

Evidence: The narrator consistently highlights Cursor’s efficiency and ability to correctly resolve coding requests, whereas Copilot frequently encounters slowdowns and inaccuracies.

Counter evidence: While Cursor shows stronger results in specific comparisons, Copilot's user experience may vary widely based on differing coding environments and personal preferences.

Claim rating: 9 / 10

Claim: GitHub Copilot's multi-file editing feature is less reliable than Cursor's agent mode.

Evidence: Copilot users experience issues with slow searches and incorrect updates, while Cursor performs these actions quickly and accurately without requiring manual tagging.

Counter evidence: Some developers may benefit from the context tools offered by Copilot or find its interface suitable for their workflow, resulting in satisfactory experiences with its multi-file editing capabilities.

Claim rating: 7 / 10

Model version: 0.25 ,chatGPT:gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18

### Key Information: GitHub Copilot vs. Cursor 1. **Free Tier Introduction**: GitHub Copilot now offers a free tier for Visual Studio Code users. 2. **Feature Comparison**: - **Multi-File Editing**: - Copilot's "Edit with Copilot" allows reading/writing from multiple files but has been reported to be slow and inaccurate. - Cursor excels with faster and more accurate multi-file editing capabilities. 3. **Performance Issues with Copilot**: - Struggles to find and update the correct files. - Slow search speeds, leading to errors during file modification. - Fails to handle simple prompts effectively, often resulting in infinite loading states or incorrect updates. 4. **Feature Advantages**: - Cursor reliably completes coding tasks such as fixing bugs or generating UI components correctly and quickly. - Cursor's agent mode allows seamless codebase navigation without manual file tagging. 5. **Additional Features**: - Copilot has useful terminal integration and auto-generates commit messages, but Cursor's features are often preferred for usability. - Copilot’s inline autocomplete is basic compared to Cursor’s advanced suggestions. 6. **User Experience**: - Users often find Cursor’s output to be cleaner and more functional. - GitHub Copilot’s multi-file editing is seen as inefficient and tedious. 7. **Cost**: - Cursor is priced at $20/month, seen as worth the investment given its efficiency in coding. - GitHub Copilot’s plans start at $10/month with a free tier that may have usage limits. 8. **Overall Recommendation**: - Cursor is favored for its reliability and feature richness. - While GitHub Copilot becomes a solid option for users looking for cost-effective solutions, serious users might benefit more from Cursor’s capabilities. 9. **Reliability**: - Cursor consistently performs better in real-world scenarios compared to Copilot. - It is advised to manually tag files when using GitHub Copilot for multi-file editing to avoid mistakes. 10. **Conclusion**: - Both tools have their advantages, but personal preference and specific needs play a crucial role in deciding which coding assistant to use. ### Suggestion: For detailed insights and comparisons with other AI tools, refer to the full article in the Builder blog.