Cursor vs Kiro
A side-by-side comparison of Cursor and Kiro, two IDE tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Cursor | Kiro |
|---|---|---|
| Category | IDE | IDE |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Deployment | Local | Local |
| Platforms (differs) | macOS, Windows, Linux | macOS, Windows, Linux, CLI |
| Model support | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Anysphere | AWS |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
Cursor
Pioneered agentic, multi-file editing in a familiar VS Code fork — frontier models bundled, no API key wrangling.
- Inherits the VS Code extension ecosystem
- Frontier models bundled in one plan
- Strong multi-file agent + tab completion
- BYO key supported
- Closed source (the editor itself)
- Heavier on usage limits at higher tiers
- No first-party Linux/mobile parity gaps
Kiro
Spec-first: writes requirements/design/tasks .md artifacts to disk before coding, unlike prompt-to-diff editors.
- Durable spec artifacts before implementation
- Built on Code OSS — VS Code extensions transfer
- Agent hooks automate actions on file events
- Runs on Claude Sonnet models
- Young product; agent still maturing
- Spec workflow adds overhead for small tasks
- Free tier capped at limited monthly interactions
When to pick which
Both cover Code generation, Autonomous coding agent, and IDE integration.
Pick Cursor if you need Terminal / CLI agent and Code review.
- Terminal / CLI agent (secondary capability)
- Code review (secondary capability)
Pick Kiro if you need Trigger-action automation and Tool / function calling.
- Trigger-action automation (secondary capability)
- Tool / function calling (secondary capability)
They also differ on:
- Platforms
- macOS, Windows, Linux · macOS, Windows, Linux, CLI