Cursor AI vs Refact AI: Which Code Assistant Is Right for You?

Cursor AI and Refact AI are both AI coding assistants, but they are built around very different priorities. One focuses on developer experience and polish. The other focuses on privacy, open-source flexibility, and self-hosting.

If your team has specific data requirements or wants full control over your AI tooling, this comparison matters. Here is a clear breakdown of both.

‍

Key Takeaways

• Different deployment models: Cursor is cloud-only and proprietary; Refact is open-source with self-hosting available.
• Privacy and compliance: Refact supports air-gapped, self-hosted environments that Cursor cannot match.
• Open source vs closed source: Refact's code is public and customizable; Cursor's is proprietary and not modifiable.
• UX and polish: Cursor offers a more refined editor experience; Refact is more basic in its interface and workflow.
• Fine-tuning support: Refact allows fine-tuning on your own codebase; Cursor does not offer this capability.
• Price difference: Refact Cloud starts at $10 per month; Cursor Pro starts at $20 per month.

‍

What Is the Difference Between Cursor AI and Refact AI?

‍

Cursor AI is a proprietary AI code editor forked from VS Code, offering a polished AI-native development environment. Refact AI is an open-source AI coding assistant that works as a plugin inside VS Code and JetBrains, with options for full self-hosted deployment.

‍

The fundamental difference is control. Cursor hands you a refined product. Refact hands you the source code and deployment flexibility.

• Cursor is a standalone editor: You use Cursor instead of VS Code, bringing all your existing VS Code settings with you.
• Refact is a plugin: You install it inside your existing VS Code or JetBrains IDE and keep your current setup intact.
• Open source: Refact's source code is publicly available on GitHub, so you can inspect, fork, and modify it.
• Proprietary model: Cursor is closed source, and you cannot inspect or modify how it works under the hood.
• Self-hosting: Refact supports deployment on your own infrastructure, keeping your code and queries off third-party servers.

Understanding what Cursor AI actually is and how it works clarifies why it is built as a full editor replacement rather than a plugin that fits into your existing setup.

If full control and data sovereignty matter to your team, Refact starts the conversation from a fundamentally different position than Cursor does.

‍

How Do the AI Coding Features Compare?

‍

Cursor has more polished AI coding features, including a capable chat interface, Composer for multi-file editing, and deep codebase indexing. Refact has code completion, chat, and basic agent capabilities, but the experience is less refined and the feature set is narrower.

‍

For most daily coding tasks, Cursor provides a smoother and more capable AI experience out of the box.

• Multi-file editing: Cursor's Composer can plan and apply changes across multiple files in a single coordinated session.
• Refact's agent mode: Refact has some agent capabilities, but they are less mature and less deeply integrated than Cursor's Composer.
• Code completion quality: Both tools offer inline autocomplete, but Cursor's completions tend to be more contextually accurate.
• Chat interface: Cursor's chat is polished and tightly integrated with your open files; Refact's is functional but more basic.
• Custom model support: Refact supports connecting your own models, including locally hosted ones; Cursor does not offer this.

Discovering what Cursor AI includes out of the box shows the full feature set that makes it one of the most capable AI coding tools available today.

If feature quality and workflow integration are your priorities, Cursor has a clear lead. If flexibility and control matter more, Refact offers something Cursor simply cannot.

‍

How Does Privacy and Deployment Compare?

‍

Refact supports fully self-hosted, air-gapped deployments where your code never leaves your own infrastructure. Cursor is a cloud-based product, and your code is processed on Cursor's servers even with privacy mode enabled.

‍

For teams in regulated industries or with strict data governance requirements, this difference is significant.

• Refact self-hosted: You deploy Refact on your own servers, and all AI processing happens within your controlled environment.
• Air-gapped environments: Refact works in environments with no external internet access, which is essential for certain enterprise and government use cases.
• Cursor Privacy Mode: Cursor offers a privacy mode that limits data retention, but your code still passes through Cursor's cloud infrastructure.
• Custom model integration: With self-hosted Refact, you can connect your own LLMs, including locally hosted open-source models.
• Compliance requirements: Teams subject to HIPAA, SOC 2, or government data regulations often cannot use cloud-only tools for sensitive codebases.

Learning how to use Cursor AI effectively includes understanding its privacy settings, but those settings do not change the fundamental cloud architecture.

If your organization cannot send code to third-party servers, Refact is the only option of these two. Cursor's privacy features do not satisfy air-gapped requirements.

‍

How Does Pricing Compare for Cursor vs Refact AI?

‍

Refact offers a free self-hosted tier, a $10 per month Cloud plan, and custom Enterprise pricing. Cursor offers a free tier, a $20 per month Pro plan, and a $40 per user per month Business plan.

‍

‍

Reviewing Cursor AI's full pricing breakdown helps you understand what each tier includes and whether the cost is justified for your team's specific needs.

Refact's lower cloud price and free self-hosted option make it attractive on cost alone. Cursor's higher price reflects its more polished product and broader feature set.

‍

What Are the Tradeoffs of Open Source vs Closed Source?

‍

Refact is open source, which means you can inspect the code, customize the behavior, and run it on your own infrastructure. Cursor is closed source, which means you accept the product as-is and trust Cursor to handle your code responsibly.

‍

Neither approach is universally better. The right choice depends on what your team values most.

• Open source transparency: With Refact, you can audit exactly what the software does with your code and data.
• Custom model connections: Refact lets you plug in any LLM, including open-source models you host yourself, for full stack control.
• Fine-tuning capability: Refact supports fine-tuning on your own codebase, which improves suggestion quality for domain-specific code.
• Closed source stability: Cursor's team controls the full stack, which often means a more consistent and polished product experience.
• Cursor's ecosystem: Cursor benefits from significant investment and a large user base, meaning faster iteration and more reliable performance.

Exploring Cursor AI use cases across different development contexts shows how it performs in real-world scenarios where polished tooling directly impacts developer output.

The open vs. closed source distinction matters most to teams with specific compliance, customization, or infrastructure requirements. For individual developers, product quality usually wins.

‍

Who Should Use Refact AI and Who Should Use Cursor AI?

‍

Use Refact if your team needs self-hosting, air-gapped deployment, open-source flexibility, or fine-tuning on your own codebase. Use Cursor if you want the best-in-class AI coding experience with a polished UX, strong feature set, and active development roadmap.

‍

Most individual developers will find Cursor more productive day-to-day. Teams with data governance requirements often have no choice but to consider Refact.

• Use Refact if: Your organization cannot send code to third-party cloud servers due to compliance or security policies.
• Use Cursor if: You want the most capable and polished AI coding environment available today for your daily work.
• Enterprise teams: How Cursor AI works in enterprise settings covers its admin controls and privacy features, which matter for larger deployments.
• New to Cursor: Installing and setting up Cursor AI walks through the initial configuration so you can evaluate it quickly without a long ramp-up.
• Exploring more options: If neither tool feels like a perfect fit, reviewing the best Cursor AI alternatives gives you a complete view of what else is available.

The choice between Cursor and Refact is ultimately a choice between convenience and control. Both are legitimate tools for legitimate teams with different priorities.

‍

Conclusion

Cursor AI and Refact AI serve different developer priorities. Cursor delivers a polished, full-featured AI coding environment that most developers will find immediately productive. Refact delivers open-source flexibility, self-hosting, and fine-tuning for teams where control and privacy are non-negotiable. If you are an individual developer focused on output, Cursor wins. If your team has strict data requirements, Refact is worth a serious look.

‍

‍

Want AI Tools That Work for Your Team?

Most teams struggle not with choosing the right tools, but with building software that actually ships on time and holds up in production.

At LowCode Agency, we design, build, and evolve custom software that businesses rely on daily. We are a strategic product team, not a dev shop.

• Discovery first: We start by understanding your business goals, technical constraints, and user needs before anything is built.
• Thoughtful design: We create interfaces and architectures that developers can maintain and users actually enjoy.
• Reliable builds: We deliver production-ready software on schedules that your stakeholders can plan around with confidence.
• Scales with you: We make architectural decisions early that prevent expensive and painful rewrites as your product grows.
• Fast delivery cycles: We work in short, visible cycles with real deliverables so progress is never invisible.
• Long-term partnership: We stay involved after launch, iterating and improving your product as your needs evolve over time.

We build software that teams actually use, not prototypes that stall in staging.

If you are serious about building software that ships fast and scales, let us show you how we approach product development.