Cursor vs Aider: what developers actually say
Based on 800 opinions on Hacker News from developers who discussed these two, most of them first-hand users.
Cursor comes out ahead overall: it has far more evidence (766 opinions vs 34), strong speed (44 positive, 8 negative) and UX (101 positive, 59 negative), but its 55% approval, 53% over 90 days, and weak reliability (14 positive, 58 negative) are real drags. Aider's 60% approval and the sole explicit head-to-head vote favor it, but 34 opinions and no 90-day approval figure make that edge thin. Code quality is positive for both (Cursor 59 to 49, Aider 5 to 1); Cursor's cost and usage limits are split (58 to 60 and 17 to 20), and Aider users cite API bills and some left over price. Aider is the better pick for a terminal, git-based workflow on a very large codebase where control and accuracy matter; Cursor is the better pick for a broad IDE, model choice and faster daily use.
When developers explicitly said they prefer one or switched: 0 picked Cursor, 1 picked Aider.
Choose Cursor if
- Want one IDE for Claude, Codex and other models
- Care most about speed and review UX
- Can tolerate reliability and usage-limit complaints
Choose Aider if
- Work in a terminal with a git-centered loop
- Need control and accuracy on a very large codebase
- Prefer local-first tooling and manual file selection
Where each one wins and loses
Why developers switched
Picked Cursor
No explicit switches recorded.
Picked Aider
Summaries are paraphrased. Each links to the original comment.