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 October 25, 2026
Cursor
Cursor
IDE, standalone CLI and cloud agents · Hybrid
Glass Devtools (Void)
Void
Own IDE (VS Code fork) · Hybrid
| Specification | Cursor | Void |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | ||
| Vendor | Cursor | Glass Devtools (Void) |
| Runs in | ||
| Runs in | IDE, standalone CLI and cloud agents | Own IDE (VS Code fork) |
| Editor support | ||
| Editor support | Cursor IDE (VS Code fork), Terminal CLI beside any editor, Cloud agents (web/mobile) | Void only |
| Autonomy | ||
| Autonomy | Hybrid | Hybrid |
| Pricing model | ||
| Pricing model | Hybrid | Usage-based |
| Requires changing editor | ||
| Requires changing editor | Winner: No | Yes |
| Publisher-reported SWE-bench Verified (Background Agent, Claude Sonnet 4.6) · source date 2026-04-19 | ||
| Publisher-reported SWE-bench Verified (Background Agent, Claude Sonnet 4.6) · source date 2026-04-19 | 65.7% | Not verifiedUnverified |
Dates refer to the linked source’s publication or capture unless it explicitly states when the benchmark was measured. Values we could not confirm are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Benchmark receipts
- Cursor · Publisher-reported SWE-bench Verified (Background Agent, Claude Sonnet 4.6): source
Cursor
Cursor, now part of SpaceX, offers an AI-native VS Code-based editor, a standalone terminal agent and cloud agents. The IDE path changes editor; the CLI can run beside an existing editor. Grok and Composer are first-party models, with third-party models available subject to plan and policy.
Best for
- Daily feature work
- Multi-file edits in-editor
- Teams already on VS Code
Watch out
SpaceX-owned Cursor is now sold through the shared X Subscription: Plus $8/month ($80/year), Premium $30 ($300/year), Super $100 ($1,000/year), Ultra $200 ($2,000/year), before tax. Paid plans share one weekly Cursor/Grok pool; third-party models on Premium and above bill from prepaid credit at API list prices. Plus has fixed settings and excludes third-party models, BYOK, Auto and cloud features. Existing Pro/Pro+/Start/legacy Ultra and Teams Standard/Premium accounts retain their separate two-pool monthly plans; new-plan prices do not establish their migration. Teams offer Premium/Super/Ultra seats at $30/$100/$200 monthly. Eligible Teams/Enterprise third-party requests add $0.25/MTok; listed excluded models and Cost mode are exempt. Regional residency adds 10% on eligible model rates (https://cursor.com/pricing; https://cursor.com/docs/models-and-pricing). OpenAI's August 28 notice proposes a November 12, 2026 (2026-11-12) wind-down; it does not prove OpenAI models have already been removed (https://openai.com/index/our-decision-on-cursor-following-its-acquisition-by-spacex/). Privacy Mode prevents training, subject to abuse-investigation retention and explicitly approved non-ZDR models such as Fable; BYOK requests still use Cursor's backend. Current Instant Grep builds/searches its index locally without storing code embeddings, but opened file context can still reach model providers. Ignore rules do not block terminal or MCP reads (https://cursor.com/data-use; https://cursor.com/docs/context/codebase-indexing; https://cursor.com/docs/reference/ignore-file). The retained 65.7% benchmark is an April 19 publisher compilation for Background Agent with Sonnet 4.6, not a current-product measurement or an independently reproduced official submission. CLI/cloud availability means switching IDE is optional (https://cursor.com/docs/cli/overview; https://cursor.com/blog/joining-spacex). The August 28 OpenAI wind-down notice is retained as a historical reference; its body was not successfully re-fetched in this review. The future notice is not evidence of account-level removal today.
Void
Void was an Apache 2.0 VS Code fork whose original README described direct hosted/local model connections. The owner archived it June 2, 2026 and deprecated it; historical architecture is not a current privacy or security guarantee.
Best for
- Historical comparison of editor agents
- Reviewing an existing Void installation
- Planning migration from an unmaintained upstream
Watch out
The owner archived and deprecated upstream on June 2, 2026 and no longer accepts contributions. The active-looking homepage still advertises a beta and privacy claims, which conflicts with that lifecycle notice. Treat those homepage claims as historical descriptions, not current security assurances. Free source licensing does not remove hardware or provider costs. Current security fixes, provider compatibility and community-fork support are unverified.
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?
How are Cursor and Void priced?
Is Cursor or Void better for large refactors?
Will my project rules transfer between Cursor and Void?
Is Cursor free enough for daily agent work?
Do coding agents replace code review?
Should we harden MCP before rolling out a coding agent?
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.