Cursor vs Kilo Code
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
Cursor is the stronger AI pick in AI Coding Assistants: it has a visibility score of 67.7 versus 5.3 for Kilo Code, and ranks ahead in 100% of the answers that name both.
Choose Cursor if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (67.7 vs 5.3)
- You need AIUC-1 or ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or ISO/IEC 42001:2023 or SOC 2 Type II coverage
- Strong codebase indexing and multi-file editing
- High user satisfaction and momentum
Choose Kilo Code if…
- AI answers describe it more positively (100% vs 53% positive)
- You need a self-hosted or on-premises option
- Useful AI coding agent inside the IDE
- Low subscription costs and no vendor lock-in
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 3
| Metric | Cursor | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 67.7% | 5.3% |
| Change vs last week | New | New |
| Rank in AI Coding Assistants | #2 | #17 |
| Share of voice | 13.6% | 1.1% |
| Mentions this run | 65 | 6 |
| Positive in AI answers | 53% | 100% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
Cursor 0pp · Kilo Code 0pp over 0 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
Cursor leads on 3 of 3 engines
Head to head in AI answers
2 engine answers name both brands
| Prompt | Engine | Cursor | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best AI coding assistant for startups | Perplexity | #1 | #4 |
| Which AI coding assistant has transparent pricing? | Perplexity | #2 | #6 |
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | Cursor | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | — | Per seat |
| Entry price | — | Free; paid from $15 per seat / mo |
| Free plan | — | Yes |
| Deployment | Desktop, CLI, web, mobile and cloud agents | IDE, CLI and cloud; local models supported; the open-source code can be self-hosted |
| Compliance | AIUC-1, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, ISO/IEC 42001:2023, SOC 2 Type II | — |
| Support | Customer support by email at hi@cursor.com, Priority support on the Enterprise plan | Community support on the Individual plan, Priority support on the Teams plan, Dedicated support channels and SLA commitments on the Enterprise plan |
| Employees | 501–1,000 | — |
| Funding | Funding round at $9.9B valuation | Seed · $8M raised |
| Best for | Individual developers and engineering teams that hand coding tasks to AI agents, and larger organizations that need enterprise security and admin controls. | Developers and teams who want an open-source AI coding agent that works with their own model keys or local models across IDE, CLI and cloud. |
Plans side by side
Cursor
Pricing not available.
Kilo Code
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
Cursor
- Strong codebase indexing and multi-file editing
- High user satisfaction and momentum
- Top overall pick for professional developers
- Transparent pricing tiers and annual discount
- Free tier to try it
- Shared credit pool makes heavy agentic usage less predictable
- Free Hobby plan has limited usage
Kilo Code
- Useful AI coding agent inside the IDE
- Low subscription costs and no vendor lock-in
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 100%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “Cursor vs Kilo Code”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/cursor-vs-kilo-code, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.