App comparison · category peers
Cursor vs Continue
Systematic comparison of Cursor and Continue across deployment, access, interfaces, automation, and sourced product capabilities. Green highlights mark stronger normalized product-surface values; qualitative tradeoffs remain neutral.
Product surface
Side-by-side app facts
| Field | Cursor | Continue |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anysphere | Continue |
| Category | Coding agent | Coding agent |
| Lifecycle | Active | Active |
| Access | Proprietary | Open source |
| License | Unknown | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Local execution | Yes | Yes |
| Cloud execution | Yes | No |
| Platforms | macOS, Windows, Linux, Web, iOS, Android | macOS, Windows, Linux |
| Interfaces | IDE, CLI, Web, Mobile | IDE extension, CLI |
| Model access | Cursor-managed and supported frontier models | Multiple hosted and local model providers |
| Automation | Background agents, parallel agents, and command-line runs | Agent mode, rules, tools, and headless workflows |
| Multi-agent | Yes | Unknown |
| Persistent memory | Yes | Unknown |
| MCP support | Yes | Yes |
| Pricing | Free and paid individual and business plans | Free core software with optional managed services |
13 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Editorially curated pair with developer-owned primary sources
Shared surface
Overlapping documented capabilities
Developer evidence