App comparison · category peers
Cursor vs Roo Code
Systematic comparison of Cursor and Roo Code 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 | Roo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anysphere | Roo Code |
| 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 |
| Model access | Cursor-managed and supported frontier models | Multiple hosted and local model providers |
| Automation | Background agents, parallel agents, and command-line runs | Custom modes, tools, checkpoints, and MCP workflows |
| Multi-agent | Yes | Yes |
| Persistent memory | Yes | Unknown |
| MCP support | Yes | Yes |
| Pricing | Free and paid individual and business plans | Free software; model usage is separate |
14 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Editorially curated pair with developer-owned primary sources
Shared surface
Overlapping documented capabilities
Developer evidence