AI Coding Assistants Compared: GitHub Copilot vs Cursor vs Claude Code vs Cody vs Continue

AI Coding Assistants Compared: GitHub Copilot vs Cursor vs Claude Code vs Cody vs Continue

The AI coding assistant market has matured past the "novelty" phase. These tools are now standard infrastructure for professional developers, and choosing between them is a real architectural decision -- it affects your workflow, your team's velocity, and potentially your codebase's privacy posture. This guide breaks down the five most significant tools, compares them on the dimensions that actually matter, and helps you pick the right one for your situation.

Quick Comparison

GitHub Copilot

Copilot is the most widely deployed AI coding assistant. It runs as an extension in VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Neovim, and Xcode, providing inline completions, chat, and now agentic multi-file editing.

Inline Completions

Copilot's core feature is ghost text -- you type, and it suggests the rest. Accept with Tab. This works for everything from single-line completions to multi-line function bodies.

// Type a function signature, Copilot fills the body:
function parseCSVLine(line: string, delimiter = ","): string[] {
  const result: string[] = [];
  let current = "";
  let inQuotes = false;

  for (const char of line) {
    if (char === '"') {
      inQuotes = !inQuotes;
    } else if (char === delimiter && !inQuotes) {
      result.push(current.trim());
      current = "";
    } else {
      current += char;
    }
  }
  result.push(current.trim());
  return result;
}

Inline completions excel at boilerplate: test cases, type definitions, repetitive CRUD operations, and pattern-matching against surrounding code. You write one example, and Copilot generates the rest.

Copilot Chat and Agent Mode

Copilot Chat operates in a sidebar panel or inline. You can ask questions about your codebase, request explanations, or ask for refactors. Agent mode (launched in 2025) takes this further -- it can create files, run terminal commands, and make multi-file changes autonomously.

// Example Copilot Chat prompt:
"Add input validation to the createUser endpoint.
 Email should be a valid format, name should be 1-100 chars,
 and role should be one of 'user', 'admin', 'moderator'."

Agent mode will edit the route handler, add a validation schema (using Zod or your existing validation library), update tests, and run them.

When to Choose Copilot

• You want the most polished inline completion experience
• Your team is already on GitHub and wants seamless integration (PR summaries, issue references)
• You need broad IDE support (especially JetBrains or Xcode)
• You want a corporate-backed tool with IP indemnity (Business/Enterprise plans)

Limitations

• Model selection is limited compared to Cursor
• Agent mode is newer and less capable than Cursor Composer or Claude Code
• Enterprise privacy features require the more expensive Business plan ($19/mo per seat)

Cursor

Cursor is a VS Code fork rebuilt with AI as a first-class citizen. Rather than adding AI features to an existing editor, every interaction in Cursor is designed around AI assistance.

Cmd+K: Inline Editing

Select code, press Cmd+K, describe a change, and Cursor rewrites the selection. It shows a diff you can accept or reject.

# Select this function and press Cmd+K:
# "Add retry logic with exponential backoff, max 3 attempts"

import time
import httpx

def fetch_data(url: str, max_retries: int = 3) -> dict:
    for attempt in range(max_retries):
        try:
            response = httpx.get(url, timeout=10)
            response.raise_for_status()
            return response.json()
        except (httpx.HTTPStatusError, httpx.ConnectError) as e:
            if attempt == max_retries - 1:
                raise
            wait = 2 ** attempt  # 1s, 2s, 4s
            time.sleep(wait)

Composer: Multi-File Agentic Editing

Composer is Cursor's standout feature. You describe a task in natural language, and Cursor plans and executes changes across multiple files. It creates new files, modifies existing ones, and shows you the full diff before you accept.

// Composer prompt example:
"Add a rate limiter middleware to the Express app.
 Use a sliding window algorithm with Redis.
 Limit to 100 requests per minute per IP.
 Add tests and update the middleware chain in app.ts."

Composer will typically create the middleware file, add Redis connection logic (or reuse your existing Redis client), wire it into the middleware chain, and generate test cases.

Model Flexibility

Cursor lets you choose between multiple models for different tasks. You might use a fast model for inline completions and a more capable model for Composer tasks. You can also bring your own API keys for OpenAI, Anthropic, or other providers.

When to Choose Cursor

• AI-assisted coding is central to your workflow, not supplementary
• You want the most powerful agentic multi-file editing
• You work primarily in a single editor (the VS Code fork trade-off is acceptable)
• You want model flexibility -- switching between Claude, GPT-4o, and others

Limitations

• You are locked into the Cursor editor (no JetBrains, no Neovim)
• Extensions sometimes lag behind mainline VS Code
• The Pro plan ($20/mo) has usage limits on premium models; heavy users hit them
• Proprietary -- you depend on Cursor's infrastructure and business continuity

Claude Code

Claude Code takes a fundamentally different approach. It is a CLI tool that runs in your terminal, operating as an autonomous coding agent. It reads your codebase, edits files, runs commands, and iterates on tasks with minimal hand-holding.

How It Works

# Install
npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code

# Start a session in your project directory
cd my-project
claude

# Give it a task
> Add comprehensive error handling to the payment processing
  module. Each error type should have a specific error code,
  a user-friendly message, and structured logging.

Claude Code reads relevant files, plans the changes, edits files directly on disk, and can run your test suite to verify the changes work. It operates in a loop: edit, test, fix, until the task is complete.

Strengths

# Claude Code excels at complex, multi-step tasks:
> Refactor the authentication system from session-based to JWT.
  Update all middleware, route handlers, and tests.
  Add refresh token rotation.

# It reads the entire relevant codebase, plans the migration,
# makes changes across dozens of files, and runs tests.

The terminal-native approach means Claude Code is editor-agnostic. You can use it alongside Vim, Emacs, VS Code, or any editor. It reads and writes files on your filesystem, so your editor picks up the changes via hot reload or file watching.

Automation and Scripting

Because it is a CLI tool, Claude Code integrates into scripts and CI pipelines:

# Use in a CI pipeline for automated code review
claude -p "Review this diff for security issues,
  performance problems, and style violations" < changes.diff

# Automated refactoring
claude -p "Convert all callback-style async functions in src/
  to async/await syntax"

When to Choose Claude Code

• You prefer working in the terminal
• You want an editor-agnostic tool that works with any development environment
• You tackle large, complex refactoring tasks that span many files
• You want to integrate AI coding into scripts and automation pipelines
• You are comfortable giving an agent file system and shell access

Limitations

• No inline completions -- it is not an autocomplete tool
• No visual diff preview in the terminal (you review changes in your editor)
• Requires an Anthropic API subscription (Max plan or API credits)
• Can be expensive for heavy use due to token consumption on large codebases

Cody (Sourcegraph)

Cody is Sourcegraph's AI coding assistant. Its differentiator is deep codebase context -- Sourcegraph's code intelligence platform powers Cody's understanding of your entire codebase, including cross-repository references.

Codebase-Aware Responses

Cody indexes your codebase and uses Sourcegraph's code graph to provide context-aware answers:

// Ask Cody: "How does the billing system calculate prorated charges?"
// Cody searches across your codebase, finds the relevant modules,
// and explains with references to specific files and functions:

// From src/billing/proration.ts:
export function calculateProration(
  plan: Plan,
  upgradeDate: Date,
  billingCycleEnd: Date
): number {
  const totalDays = differenceInDays(billingCycleEnd, plan.currentPeriodStart);
  const remainingDays = differenceInDays(billingCycleEnd, upgradeDate);
  const dailyRate = plan.price / totalDays;
  return Math.round(dailyRate * remainingDays * 100) / 100;
}

Autocomplete and Chat

Cody provides inline completions and a chat interface, similar to Copilot. The free tier gives you access to basic features, and the Pro tier ($9/mo) unlocks more usage and model options.

When to Choose Cody

• You already use Sourcegraph for code search
• You work with large codebases across multiple repositories
• Deep code graph context matters more to you than agentic editing
• You want a generous free tier for individual use

Limitations

• No agentic multi-file editing (chat and completions only)
• Best experience requires a Sourcegraph instance (self-hosted or cloud)
• Smaller ecosystem and community than Copilot or Cursor
• IDE support limited to VS Code and JetBrains

Continue

Continue is the open-source alternative. It runs as a VS Code or JetBrains extension and lets you bring your own model -- any OpenAI-compatible API, local models via Ollama, or hosted providers.

Configuration

// .continue/config.json
{
  "models": [
    {
      "title": "Claude Sonnet",
      "provider": "anthropic",
      "model": "claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
      "apiKey": "sk-ant-..."
    },
    {
      "title": "Local Llama",
      "provider": "ollama",
      "model": "codellama:34b"
    }
  ],
  "tabAutocompleteModel": {
    "title": "Starcoder2",
    "provider": "ollama",
    "model": "starcoder2:7b"
  },
  "embeddingsProvider": {
    "provider": "ollama",
    "model": "nomic-embed-text"
  }
}

Customizable Context

Continue lets you define custom context providers -- pull in documentation, database schemas, or API specs as part of every query:

// .continue/config.ts
export function modifyConfig(config: Config): Config {
  config.contextProviders.push({
    name: "database-schema",
    description: "Current database schema",
    getContextItems: async () => {
      const schema = await fs.readFile("db/schema.sql", "utf-8");
      return [{ name: "schema.sql", content: schema }];
    },
  });
  return config;
}

When to Choose Continue

• You want full control over which models you use
• Data privacy is non-negotiable (run everything locally with Ollama)
• You want an open-source tool you can audit and extend
• You are experimenting with different models and want easy switching
• Budget is a concern -- BYO API keys can be cheaper than subscriptions

Limitations

• Setup requires more configuration than commercial tools
• Quality depends entirely on which models you choose
• No hosted infrastructure -- you manage API keys and model availability
• Community-driven, so features may lag behind commercial competitors

Pricing Comparison

Note: actual costs for Claude Code and Continue depend on API usage. A heavy day of Claude Code usage can consume $5-15 in API credits. Continue with a local model costs nothing beyond hardware.

Privacy and Security

Privacy matters more than most developers realize. Your code is being sent to external servers for inference. Here is what each tool offers:

If you work in a regulated industry (healthcare, finance, government), the practical options are: Copilot Business with telemetry disabled, Cody Enterprise with a self-hosted Sourcegraph instance, or Continue with locally-hosted models.

Code Quality Comparison

All these tools produce good code for straightforward tasks. Differences emerge on complex work:

Boilerplate and patterns: All tools handle this well. Copilot and Cursor are fastest for inline completions because that is their primary interaction model.

Complex logic: Claude Code and Cursor Composer excel here because they can iterate. They run tests, see failures, and fix them in a loop. Copilot Chat and Cody are limited to single-turn suggestions.

Large refactors: Claude Code is the strongest for tasks spanning many files. Its terminal-based loop of read, plan, edit, test, fix handles 20+ file refactors reliably. Cursor Composer is a close second. Copilot Agent is improving but still less reliable on large changes.

Test generation: All tools generate reasonable tests. Claude Code tends to produce the most thorough test coverage because it can run the tests and iterate until they pass.

Decision Framework

Choose GitHub Copilot if: You want polished inline completions in any major IDE, your team is on GitHub, and you value stability and corporate backing.

Choose Cursor if: AI-assisted coding is your primary workflow, you want the best agentic editing in a visual editor, and you are fine being locked into the Cursor IDE.

Choose Claude Code if: You work in the terminal, tackle complex multi-file tasks, want editor independence, and are comfortable with a CLI-first workflow.

Choose Cody if: You work with large multi-repo codebases, already use Sourcegraph, and value deep code context over agentic editing.

Choose Continue if: Privacy is paramount, you want full model control, or you are on a budget and willing to invest setup time.

Using Multiple Tools

Many developers combine tools. A common setup:

• Copilot or Cursor for inline completions (the speed of Tab-accept is hard to beat for everyday coding)
• Claude Code for large refactors, complex debugging, and tasks that need iterative test-driven development
• Continue with a local model for sensitive code that cannot leave your machine

There is no rule that says you must pick one. The tools have different strengths and different interaction models. Use the right tool for the right task.

Summary

The AI coding assistant market has segmented into clear categories. Copilot and Cursor own the IDE-integrated experience with inline completions and visual editing. Claude Code owns the terminal-based agentic workflow for complex, multi-file tasks. Cody leverages Sourcegraph's code intelligence for deep codebase understanding. Continue provides an open-source, privacy-first foundation you can customize entirely. Evaluate based on your workflow (terminal vs IDE), your privacy requirements, your budget, and the complexity of the tasks you need help with. The best tool is the one that fits how you actually work.