Agentic harness comparison
Cursor vs Void
Compared on where each one runs, which editors it supports, how autonomous it is, and how it bills — the four things that actually decide Cursor vs Void. Rankings reflect fit and trade-offs, not a single universal winner; partner links, when present, do not replace that methodology.
Details last verified September 3, 2026
Cursor
Cursor
Own IDE (VS Code fork) · Hybrid
Glass Devtools (Void)
Void
Own IDE (VS Code fork) · Hybrid
| Specification | Cursor | Void |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Cursor | Glass Devtools (Void) |
| Runs in | Own IDE (VS Code fork) | Own IDE (VS Code fork) |
| Editor support | Cursor only | Void only |
| Autonomy | Hybrid | Hybrid |
| Pricing model | Hybrid | Usage-based |
| Requires changing editor | Yes | Yes |
| SWE-bench Verified (Background Agent, Claude Sonnet 4.6) (2026-04-19) | 65.7% | Not verifiedUnverified |
Benchmark scores carry the month they were measured. Values we could not confirm are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Benchmark receipts
Cursor · SWE-bench Verified (Background Agent, Claude Sonnet 4.6): source
Cursor
An AI-native editor (a VS Code fork) with assistance woven through every surface rather than in a side panel; agent and chat work inside the same IDE.
Best for
- Daily feature work
- Multi-file edits in-editor
- Teams already on VS Code
Watch out
Cursor only works in its own IDE — adopting it means the team changes editor. Pricing (verified 2026-09-03, cursor.com/pricing): Hobby free; Pro $20/mo; Pro+ $60/mo; Ultra $200/mo; Teams Standard $40/user/mo; Teams Premium $120/user/mo. Plans are usage-based: Pro includes ~$20 of model usage, Pro+ ~$70, Ultra ~$400, with on-demand overage after the pool. OpenAI models, Anthropic models, Google models, and Grok are available in the first-party pool. The Aug–Sep 2026 Cloud Agents wave added prepared-environment Builds, agent subscriptions that watch PRs/Slack/schedules, Origin code hosting (early beta), and Self-hosted Machines (2026-09-02) that run agent tool execution inside your own network. Because the seat price is not an unlimited agent budget, size heavy agent use against the included usage pool, not the sticker price.
Void
Open-source (Apache 2.0) VS Code fork pitched as a privacy-first Cursor alternative: it connects directly to any LLM (cloud or local via Ollama) with no proprietary backend, so your code never passes through a vendor middleman.
Best for
- Privacy-conscious developers
- Local-model / Ollama users
- Cursor-like features without lock-in
Watch out
Free and open source; you pay only for the model you connect (or nothing if local). Active development is officially PAUSED in 2026 — no new features or security patches, though the last build still runs and community forks continue (verified 2026-08-29, voideditor.com, similarlabs.com, codersera.com May 2026). YC-backed by Andrew & Mathew Pareles. Because it is unmaintained, self-patch if you run it on proprietary code.
Common questions
Cursor vs Void
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Do I have to change editor to use Cursor or Void?
Both require adopting their own environment — Own IDE (VS Code fork) for Cursor and Own IDE (VS Code fork) for Void. Across a team that switching cost is usually the biggest obstacle to adoption.
How are Cursor and Void priced?
Cursor is hybrid and Void is usage-based. The headline seat or plan price is not the heavy-agent bill — included credits, shared pools, and overages dominate once you loop agents hard. Estimate cost per successful task and set spend caps. Cost tracks how much you delegate, so set a spending limit before rollout rather than after the first surprise.
Is Cursor or Void better for large refactors?
Both are hybrid, so neither has a structural advantage on delegated work. Judge them on editor fit and price instead.
Will my project rules transfer between Cursor and Void?
Usually not automatically. Cursor rules, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and extension-specific configs are different conventions. Keep one source of truth in the repository (commonly AGENTS.md) and copy or link into each tool’s native format so switching does not wipe months of project teaching.
Is Cursor free enough for daily agent work?
Hobby is a real free forever plan, but Agent and Tab usage are limited — it is not a daily heavy-agent driver. Pro and higher include usage pools; on-demand spend applies after the included allowance. Treat the seat price as a floor, not an unlimited agent budget.
Do coding agents replace code review?
No. Agents can draft patches faster, but they do not remove the need for human review of plans, tool calls, permissions, diffs, tests, and rollback paths. Treat autonomy as a reason for stronger review, not less — see the coding assistant rollout guide at /ai-harnesses/guides/coding-assistant-rollout-guide.
Should we harden MCP before rolling out a coding agent?
Yes for any agent that can install MCP servers or run tools. Maintain a short allowlist, review each server’s folder and network access before install, fail closed on unknown tools, and log tool calls. .cursorignore and similar rules do not block MCP or shell access once a command is approved.
Next step
Which one fits
Autonomy and editor constraints decide this far more reliably than a benchmark score.
If most of your week is small, frequent edits, an assistive workflow beats delegation and an agentic harness sits idle while billing. If you regularly hand over work spanning many files, the reverse is true.
Where one tool requires changing editor and the other does not, that difference usually outweighs any capability gap across a team — rollouts fail on adoption, not capability.
“Open vendor” links use a first-party redirect for click counting. They are not commissionable partner placements unless a programme is active for that vendor. Affiliate disclosure.