Cursor vs Roo Code
A side-by-side comparison of Cursor and Roo Code, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Cursor | Roo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Category (differs) | IDE | Agent |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License (differs) | Proprietary | Open core |
| Deployment (differs) | Local | — |
| Platforms (differs) | macOS, Windows, Linux | VS Code extension |
| Model support (differs) | Multi-model | BYO key / model |
| Vendor (differs) | Anysphere | Roo Code |
| 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
Roo Code
Forked from Cline to push harder on autonomy and configurability, staying fully open and model-agnostic with no vendor lock-in.
- Custom role-based modes with own prompts
- Modes hand off mid-task
- Run frontier APIs or a local model
- Direct file and terminal access
- API token costs are on you
- Autonomy needs careful approval review
- Centered on VS Code and forks
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 Roo Code if you need Code documentation and MCP server.
- Code documentation (secondary capability)
- MCP server (secondary capability)
Roo Code leans on IDE integration as a headline capability; Cursor treats it as secondary.
- IDE integration (primary capability)
They also differ on:
- License
- Proprietary · Open core
- Platforms
- macOS, Windows, Linux · VS Code extension
- Model support
- Multi-model · BYO key / model