How to choose between Cursor and GitHub Copilot
Choose between Cursor and GitHub Copilot by writing down where the code lives, who reviews the diff, and whether an agent may run commands. The official docs for both products separate autocomplete at the cursor from an agent that takes a whole task. Until review and command approval are written down, do not attach an agent to a repository that can change the main branch.
On this page
Start from where the code already lives
Write the choice against the process, not against a feature grid. Note which host holds the repository, which editor people already open, who merges a diff, and who may run a terminal command. A tool enters the short list only when it can sit on those four facts.
If the team already delivers through Custom software, websites, and applications, the tool has to leave its diff in the review you already run. Changing the editor does not change the reviewer or the rule for the main branch.
What the Cursor Agent docs describe
The current Cursor Agent page describes Agent as an assistant that can complete complex coding tasks on its own, run terminal commands, and edit code, opened from the side pane with Cmd+I. The tools listed on that page include searching files and folders, reading files, suggesting edits and applying them, and running terminal commands. The same page says there is no limit on the number of tool calls Agent can make during a task.
That page also says Agent creates a checkpoint before significant changes. Checkpoints are stored locally and are separate from Git. Restoring one reverts files only and does not delete the conversation. Lasting history still goes through Git. The page introduces the product as a way to build faster. This note does not treat that sentence as a speed result you can check.
What GitHub Copilot’s agent mode docs describe
The current page on using agent mode in your IDE says agent mode takes a high-level task, decides which files to change, makes the edits, and runs commands as needed, iterating until the task is done. You stay in control: you review the changes, and by default you approve commands before they run. An administrator, or your editor settings, may allow some commands to run automatically.
That page says agent mode is available in Visual Studio Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Xcode, and Eclipse, and that a missing Agent option can mean an enterprise or organization administrator has disabled agent mode for the IDE. The same page says each prompt in agent mode consumes GitHub AI Credits. This note does not quote a price or a plan amount.
Autocomplete sits beside the agent
The Cursor Tab page describes Tab as autocomplete that suggests code as you type, based on recent edits, surrounding code, and linter errors. Accept with Tab. Reject with Escape or by keeping typing. That page says Tab can change several lines at once, add a missing import, and suggest coordinated edits across related code.
The responsible-use page for GitHub Copilot inline suggestions describes those suggestions as autocomplete: complete the current line, generate a new block, or propose an insert, a change, or a deletion in existing code. You can accept all or part, dismiss the suggestion, or keep typing. How to separate the two layers is covered in What is the difference between an AI coding agent and autocomplete.
Write review and command approval before you adopt either
The Copilot agent-mode page treats reviewing the changes, and approving terminal commands by default, as part of staying in control. The inline-suggestions page says to keep secure-coding and code-review practice, and that a suggestion can be syntactically correct and still be insecure.
Before adoption, write three things: which directories may be read, which commands must stop for a person, and which branch is allowed to receive a merge. Leave those three unwritten and it is too early to compare the products. How to draw the directories is covered in How to connect an AI coding tool to an existing codebase.
Two agents on one working tree
Two agents editing the same working tree give a review two diffs from two sources and no single owner. Pick one product for a real task first: a small feature, or a defect that is already written down, and see whether the diff can merge through the review you already have.
During that trial, turn off automatic edits from the other product. Autocomplete can stay in the editor, as long as the person typing looks at a suggestion before accepting it. After the trial, decide whether a second product belongs, and write which kind of task it is for.
Put the choice in the project scope
Once you have chosen, write the product name, the directories it may touch, and the commands that need a person, into the scope of that project. The next person inherits the scope, not an oral memory of who turned an agent on.
This note does not rank adoption, speed, or quality. Those figures have to come from your own review record, with the period written down. Until that record exists, check the tool by whether a person saw the diff and whether commands were approved under the written rule.