Hobby
$0 / month
$0 per seat / month on annual billing
- No credit card required
- Limited Agent requests
- Limited Tab completions
Answer first
What matters before you scroll
This block compresses the recommendation, buyer fit, price floor, and freshness signal into one scan.
Verdict
Cursor pricing wins when developer throughput inside the IDE matters more than the lowest possible team seat cost.
Best for
Engineering teams that will actually use IDE-native agents, MCPs, hooks, and shared coding workflows every day.
Avoid if
You need a cheaper standard rollout for broad developer coverage before premium agent depth is proven.
Starting price
$20 /mo
Updated because: Cursor should now be evaluated as a team procurement option for engineering orgs, not only as an individual developer expense, even though its seat price remains much higher than Copilot Business.
Pricing guide
Cursor pricing guide
Break down Cursor's Hobby, Pro, Pro+, Ultra, Teams, and Enterprise tiers so engineering buyers can model when IDE-native agent depth is worth the seat premium.
Some links on AgentHub may be affiliate or partner links. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Learn more
Plan snapshot
Published plan snapshot
These rows keep the pricing read anchored to what the vendor currently publishes.
Free tier available · Paid from $20/mo
Pro
$20 / month
No annual price published
- Extended Agent limits
- Access to frontier models
- MCPs, skills, and hooks
- Cloud agents
Pro+
$60 / month
No annual price published
- More included agent usage
- Priority frontier-model access
- Expanded MAX mode
- MCPs, skills, hooks, and cloud agents
Ultra
$200 / month
No annual price published
- Highest included usage
- Maximum MAX mode access
- Priority frontier-model access
- Best for power users
Teams
$40 / month
No annual price published
- Shared chats, commands, and rules
- Centralized team billing
- $20 monthly included usage per user
- Usage analytics and reporting
- Org-wide privacy mode controls
- Role-based access control
- SAML/OIDC SSO
Enterprise
Custom quote
No annual price published
- Pooled usage
- Invoice or PO billing
- SCIM seat management
- Audit logs and admin controls
- AI code tracking API
Best for
Who should pay for this
Engineering teams that will actually use IDE-native agents, MCPs, hooks, and shared coding workflows every day.
Avoid if
Who should not pay for this
You need a cheaper standard rollout for broad developer coverage before premium agent depth is proven.
Pricing guide
Keep the decision moving
Use these links when the pricing read alone is not enough to close the decision.
Related compare
Cursor vs Github Copilot
Cursor wins when an engineering team wants the most agent-native IDE workflow. GitHub Copilot wins when GitHub-centric rollout, policy control, and seat efficiency matter more.
Related compare
Cursor vs Windsurf
Cursor is the safer premium coding-seat buy for most teams because its procurement story, privacy controls, pooled-usage path, and admin surface are clearer. Windsurf is the better buy when the team explicitly wants a more opinionated agentic editor centered on Cascade, previews, and flow-state coding.
Top alternative
Compare top alternative
Engineering teams that will actually use IDE-native agents, MCPs, hooks, and shared coding workflows every day.
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.
Cursor Teams is worth it when the team will actively use shared agent workflows, privacy controls, and IDE-native automation rather than basic code assistance alone.
It is enough to validate the interface and workflow feel, but not enough to model sustained team usage or the economics of agent-heavy development.
Commercial next step
Check the current vendor offer
Use the official pricing or trial path once the pricing guide matches your shortlist.