Which is better for teams: Cursor or Devin?

Choose Cursor for broad developer rollout; choose Devin for narrower high-value execution workflows.

Which tool has a free tier?

Cursor still has a free tier. Devin is mainly a paid decision once you need consistent usage or team controls.

Which tool starts cheaper?

Cursor and Devin start at the same published paid price: $20/month before usage or team add-ons change the story.

Can I use Cursor and Devin together?

Yes. A split-seat setup makes sense when one tool covers the default workflow and the other handles the narrower job it clearly does better.

Which is easier to standardize across a company?

Choose Cursor for standard engineering seats; choose Devin for specialist autonomous execution pockets.

How much does Cursor cost?

Cursor has paid plans starting at $20/month, and a free tier is also available.

How much does Devin cost?

Devin has paid plans starting at $20/month.

Which tool is cheaper for team rollout?

Cursor is currently cheaper for a small team based on the recommended published monthly plan, with a gap of $2,300/month at the default five-seat lens.

Editorial compare

Cursor vs Devin

Cursor is the better default buy for a human-in-the-loop coding workspace. Devin is the better specialist buy when the company wants autonomous engineering execution on tickets, migrations, and backlog work rather than a smarter coding cockpit.

Last updated: Apr 3, 2026

A wins when

Cursor

Cursor is now easiest to justify when the buying question is whether developers need a dedicated coding workspace that can orchestrate local and cloud agents across repos, not just a cheaper autocomplete seat inside an editor.

Starts at: $20 /mo
Best for: Coding • 10/10
Watchout: It is still a weak fit for writing, meetings, and general knowledge work outside engineering.

Official pricing

B wins when

Devin

Devin is easiest to justify when the buyer wants autonomous engineering execution on tickets, migrations, and backlog work rather than a cheaper assistant that still requires the human to do nearly all of the work.

Starts at: $20 /mo
Best for: Automation • 9/10
Watchout: It is not a cheap default coding seat for every developer.

Official pricing

Last verified: Apr 3, 2026Cursor pricing Cursor 3 announcement Cursor 3.0 changelog Devin pricing Devin Methodology

Individual lens

If you are buying a single seat

This callout compresses the comparison for personal subscribers before the team and enterprise layers complicate the answer.

Choose Cursor for the default coding seat. Choose Devin only if autonomous engineering output is the thing you are really buying.

Some links on AgentHub may be affiliate or partner links. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Learn more

Adjust seat count

Move the seat count to see how the cost gap changes as rollout size grows.

Pricing lens

Seat-cost pressure at your current team size

Published pricing is directional only, but it still helps expose when a close comparison is not really close. 5 seats

Cursor

$200

Best published monthly estimate

Best published plan: Teams

Devin

$2,500

Best published monthly estimate

Best published plan: Team

Cursor is cheaper per month by $2,300.

Feature matrix

Where the products differ in practice

This matrix keeps the comparison grounded in buyer-relevant differences rather than generic feature checkmarks.

role

Primary product role

Cursor leans Human-in-the-loop coding workspace, while Devin leans Autonomous engineering execution layer.

Cursor

Human-in-the-loop coding workspace

Devin

Autonomous engineering execution layer

pricing

Published team economics

Cursor leans $20 Pro and $40 Teams per user monthly, while Devin leans $20 Core entry, then $500 Team for autonomous engineering workflow.

Cursor

$20 Pro and $40 Teams per user monthly

Devin

$20 Core entry, then $500 Team for autonomous engineering workflow

best-fit

What you are really buying

Cursor leans Faster human coding flow plus agent orchestration inside the workspace, while Devin leans Autonomous completion of selected engineering work.

Cursor

These verdicts compress the long-form editorial read into segment-specific decisions.

Individual

Choose Cursor for the default coding seat. Choose Devin only if autonomous engineering output is the thing you are really buying.

Team

Choose Cursor for daily developer throughput. Choose Devin for narrower backlog-execution and autonomous engineering workflows.

Enterprise

Enterprise buyers should treat this as standard coding workspace versus specialist autonomous engineering layer.

Recent delta

What changed since the last meaningful update

Cursor 3 narrows the orchestration gap with multi-workspace agents, /best-of-n, local-cloud handoff, and self-hosted cloud-agent options. Devin still keeps the sharper story for autonomous ticket execution. The split is now human-in-the-loop coding workspace versus autonomous execution layer.

Decision actions

Check the two most realistic next moves

Use the current vendor offer when one side is already favored, or move to alternatives if neither side clears the bar.

Cursor

coding-assistant

Official pricing

Devin

engineering-agent

Official pricing

If neither side really fits, compare narrower alternatives before funding the wrong seat.

View alternatives: Cursor

FAQ

The long-tail questions buyers ask before they pick a side

These answers stay visible on-page so the comparison can serve both direct readers and search-driven visitors.

Choose Cursor for the everyday coding seat; choose Devin only for autonomous engineering value.

Keep comparing

Continue from this shortlist without going back to the index

These links keep the decision path moving across adjacent compare and best-list pages.

Cursor

Cursor Read pricing guide

Pro at $20 is the paid entry point, but the real buying conversation starts at Teams and Enterprise once shared controls, self-hosted requirements, or agent-orchestration workflows matter.

Cursor

Cursor Read alternatives guide

The best Cursor alternative depends on why the team is hesitating: GitHub Copilot for cheaper governed rollout, Windsurf for another premium agentic editor, Replit for a broader build-and-run environment, and ChatGPT when one seat has to cover more than coding.

Use cases

AI backlog automation for enterprise engineering: fit guide

For engineering leaders deciding whether AI should merely assist on tickets or actually own chunks of migrations, refactors, and repetitive engineering work.

Changes

See recent changes affecting Cursor and Devin

Related compare

Cursor vs ChatGPT

Cursor is the better buy when the seat is specifically about a dedicated coding cockpit with parallel agents and IDE fallback. ChatGPT is the better buy when the same subscription has to cover coding, research, writing, and mixed-role work outside engineering.

Related compare

Cursor vs GitHub Copilot

Cursor wins when an engineering team wants a unified agent workspace with the deepest IDE-native coding flow. GitHub Copilot wins when GitHub-centric rollout, policy control, and seat efficiency matter more than Cursor 3's premium workflow depth.

Related compare

Cursor vs Replit

Cursor is the better choice for a dedicated coding cockpit with IDE-native throughput. Replit is the better choice for fast browser-native app creation and lightweight deployment.

Related compare

Cursor vs Windsurf

Cursor is the safer premium coding-seat buy for most teams because Cursor 3 now combines multi-workspace agent orchestration, clearer buying path, and stronger governance. Windsurf is the better buy when the team explicitly wants a more opinionated Cascade-first editor feel.

Best list

Best AI coding assistants by workflow

This list is for buyers choosing AI coding assistants, not for people looking for a universal AI winner. It weighs coding-workspace depth, coding throughput, seat cost, and whether the same purchase must also help with research and writing outside engineering together so the top pick still makes sense in a real budget conversation.