Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@husniadil

husniadil/cursor-vs-windsurf-vs-cline.md

Created January 28, 2025 10:49
Show Gist options
  • Save husniadil/193ced61d38cf84296ca7c7ecc8dccca to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save husniadil/193ced61d38cf84296ca7c7ecc8dccca to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
AI Coding Platform Pricing Analysis by DeepSeek-R1
Raw
cursor-vs-windsurf-vs-cline.md

AI Coding Platform Pricing Analysis by DeepSeek-R1

AI Coding Pricing Plans

1. Windsurf Plan ($15/month)

  • Premium Model Access:
    • 500 credits/month for Anthropic Claude Sonnet 3.5 (1 credit per query).
  • Flow Action Credits:
    • 1,500 credits/month for IDE tasks (Create, Modify, Analyze, Search, Terminal).
    • Usage: 1 credit per tool call.
  • Flex Credits (Top-Up):
    • $10 for 300 credits (usable for prompts/flow actions, rolls over monthly).
  • Post-Limit Usage:
    • After credits expire, only the free cascade-base model (non-premium) is available.
  • Non-Premium Models:
    • Unlimited usage of weaker models (no credits required):
      • cascade-base
    • Unreliable for "agentic-mode" tasks.
    • Only suitable for non-critical tasks.

2. Cursor Plan ($20/month)

  • Premium Model Access:
    • 500 credits/month for Anthropic Claude Sonnet 3.5 (1 credit per query).
    • Top-Up: $20 for 500 additional credits (expire monthly, no rollover).
  • Non-Premium Models:
    • Unlimited usage of weaker models (no credits required):
      • gpt-4o mini
      • cursor-small
    • Unreliable for "agentic-mode" tasks.
    • Only suitable for non-critical tasks.
  • Flow Actions:
    • All IDE actions (edits, file creation) are free and unlimited.

3. Cline Plan (DeepSeek R1 Model)

  • Pay-Per-Use Pricing:
    • Input Tokens: $0.55 per 1 million tokens.
    • Output Tokens: $2.19 per 1 million tokens.
  • Usage Rules:
    • Costs calculated per query based on input/output token volume.
    • Model: DeepSeek R1 (performance comparable or superior to Claude Sonnet 3.5).
  • Free-Tier Model:
    • The gemini-2.0-flash model is available, but it may be rate-limited.
    • Users can access cheaper models (such as gpt-4o-mini) for non-critical tasks.

Analysis Questions:

  1. Credit Efficiency vs Pay-Per-Use How many monthly queries/tokens would make Cline's pay-per-use model cheaper than Windsurf/Cursor's fixed credits? What's the break-even point for input/output token combinations?

  2. Model Performance Tradeoffs If DeepSeek R1 claims superior performance to Claude Sonnet 3.5, why would anyone pay more for Windsurf/Cursor? Are there hidden quality differences in code generation or context understanding?

  3. Flow Action Economics For an active developer doing 100 IDE actions/day: Would Windsurf's 1,500 monthly credits (50/day) be insufficient, forcing Flex Credit purchases, making Cursor's unlimited plan better value?

  4. Credit Expiry Strategy How does Windsurf's rollover Flex Credit policy compare to Cursor's "use it or lose it" top-ups? Which better accommodates variable monthly usage patterns?

  5. Post-Limit Fallback Viability How capable is Cascade Base (Windsurf) vs gpt-4o mini (Cursor) for essential tasks after hitting credit limits? Could either handle critical debugging/production issues?

  6. Team Scaling Implications Which plan adapts better to team usage? Would Cline's token-based pricing scale more linearly with multiple users compared to fixed individual credits?

  7. Hybrid Usage Optimization Could one strategically combine Cursor's unlimited weak models for simple tasks with occasional Claude Sonnet credits for complex problems? How would this compare to Windsurf's structure?

  8. Token Cost Projections For Cline: What's the real-world cost of a typical code review (2,000 input tokens + 500 output tokens) vs equivalent Windsurf/Cursor credit expenditure?

  9. Architecture Lock-In Risk Does building workflows around Cursor's unlimited IDE actions create vendor lock-in that makes switching to other plans harder later?

  10. Model Ecosystem Diversity How critical is access to multiple models (Cursor's gpt-4o mini + Claude Sonnet) vs Windsurf's single premium model + fallback? Does model diversity improve problem-solving?

  11. Budget Predictability For cost-sensitive users: Is the $5 monthly price difference between Windsurf/Cursor justified by Cursor's unlimited IDE actions, given the uncertainty of Flex Credit needs?

  12. Edge Case Scenarios How would each plan handle a month with extreme usage spikes (e.g., major refactoring)? Which provides better cost control vs performance guarantees?

  13. Long-Term Cost Trajectory If AI model usage grows 20% monthly, which pricing model (fixed credits vs tokens) offers better protection against cost escalations?

  14. Latency Considerations Do premium models (Claude Sonnet/DeepSeek) have faster response times than the free-tier models? How critical is latency for interactive coding workflows?

  15. Skill Leverage Factor Could expert developers extract more value from Cline's theoretically superior model through better prompting, making per-token costs more worthwhile compared to novices?

Key Question for Recommendation:

Which plan would you recommend for me and why?

Reasoning

Okay, let's try to figure out which plan is best. So, there are three plans: Windsurf, Cursor, and Cline. Each has different pricing and features. The user wants to know which one to recommend based on their needs, but they didn't specify their exact usage. So, I need to go through the analysis questions to understand the trade-offs and then make a recommendation.

Starting with question 1: Break-even point between Cline's pay-per-use and Windsurf/Cursor's fixed credits. Cline charges per token, while the others have fixed credits. Let's calculate how many tokens would make Cline cheaper. For Windsurf, you get 500 credits for Claude Sonnet. Each query is 1 credit. So, 500 queries. Cline's cost depends on input and output tokens. Suppose an average query uses, say, 1000 input tokens and 500 output tokens. Then per query cost would be (0.55/1,000,000)1000 + (2.19/1,000,000)500 = $0.00055 + $0.001095 = $0.001645 per query. So, 500 queries would cost 500 * $0.001645 ≈ $0.82, which is way cheaper than Windsurf's $15. Wait, that can't be right. Wait, no. Wait, Cline's pricing is per million tokens. So, input is $0.55 per million tokens, output is $2.19 per million. So if a query uses 1000 input tokens and 500 output tokens, the cost per query is (0.55/1,000,000)1000 + (2.19/1,000,000)500 = $0.00055 + $0.001095 = $0.001645 per query. So 500 queries would be 500 * $0.001645 ≈ $0.82. That's way cheaper than the $15 or $20 plans. Hmm, but maybe the tokens per query are higher. Let me think. If each query is more tokens. Let's say a user makes 500 queries, each with 10,000 input tokens and 5,000 output tokens. Then per query cost would be (0.55 10,000/1,000,000) + (2.195,000/1,000,000) = 0.550.01 + 2.190.005 = 0.0055 + 0.01095 = $0.01645 per query. Then 500 queries would be 500 * 0.01645 ≈ $8.23. Still cheaper than $15. So maybe the break-even is when the token usage is much higher. Let's find when Cline's cost equals $15. Let’s set up an equation. Let’s denote input tokens per query as I, output as O. Number of queries Q. Total cost for Cline: Q(0.55I + 2.19O)/1,000,000. For Windsurf, it's $15 for 500 queries. So set Q(0.55I +2.19O)/1e6 = 15. If Q=500, then 500*(0.55I +2.19O)/1e6 =15 → (0.55I +2.19O) = 30,000. So per query, 0.55I +2.19O = 60. So if each query uses I and O such that 0.55I +2.19O =60, then 500 queries would cost $15. For example, if all output, then O=60/2.19≈27.4 tokens per query. If all input, I=60/0.55≈109 tokens. But that's per query. Wait, that seems inverted. Wait, if I and O are in tokens, then for a single query, 0.55 per million input tokens means 0.55 dollars per million. So for a query with I input tokens, input cost is I 0.55 /1e6. Similarly for output. So for 500 queries, total cost is 500(0.55I +2.19O)/1e6 =15. Let's solve for I and O. Suppose each query has I=20,000 tokens input and O=5,000 tokens output. Then per query cost is (0.5520,000 +2.195,000)/1e6 = (11,000 +10,950)/1e6 = 21,950/1e6 = $0.02195 per query. 500 queries would be 500 0.02195 ≈ $10.97, still less than $15. To reach $15, let's solve 500(0.55I +2.19O)=151e6 →0.55I +2.19O =30,000. Let's assume O=0 (only input tokens). Then I=30,000 /0.55 ≈54,545 tokens per query. For 500 queries, that's 50054,545=27,272,500 tokens. Similarly, if all output, O=30,000/2.19≈13,699 per query. So unless each query is using tens of thousands of tokens, Cline is cheaper. So the break-even is at very high token usage per query. So for most users, Cline is cheaper unless they are using a huge amount of tokens per query. But this is just for the premium model. Windsurf and Cursor also have premium model credits. So if someone is using Claude Sonnet a lot, but with low tokens per query, Cline could be cheaper. But if the tokens per query are high, then Windsurf/Cursor's fixed credits might be better. But according to this, unless you're using like 50k tokens per query, Cline is cheaper. Hmm.

Question 2: If DeepSeek R1 is better, why choose Windsurf/Cursor? Maybe because of other features. For example, Windsurf includes Flow Action credits, which are for IDE tasks. Cursor has unlimited Flow Actions. So maybe even if the model is better on Cline, the other features matter. Or maybe there are hidden quality differences. Maybe Claude Sonnet is actually better in practice, despite the claim. Or maybe integration with IDE is better in Windsurf/Cursor.

Question 3: For 100 IDE actions/day. Windsurf gives 1500/month, which is 50/day. So 100/day would need 50 extra per day, 1500 extra per month. Each Flex credit is $10 for 300. So 1500 extra credits would cost $50. So total cost would be $15 + $50 = $65. Cursor is $20 with unlimited, so better value here. So yes, for heavy IDE users, Cursor is better.

Question 4: Windsurf's Flex Credits roll over, Cursor's top-ups expire. If usage is variable, rollover is better. For months with low usage, you save credits. For high usage, you can use saved credits. Cursor's top-ups expire, so you might lose money if you don't use them.

Question 5: Post-limit fallback models. Cascade Base vs gpt-4o mini. Which is better? The free models are weaker. If after hitting credits, you need to handle critical tasks, which model is more capable? The user says Cascade Base is unreliable for agentic-mode, same for Cursor's free models. So maybe neither is great, but if gpt-4o mini is better than Cascade Base, then Cursor's fallback is better. But not sure.

Question 6: Team scaling. Cline's token pricing scales with usage, so per user, whereas fixed credits per user. So for a team, Cline might be better as you pay per token, not per seat. But if each team member needs their own plan, then fixed per user. But the question is about team usage. If the plan is per user, then Cline's per token could be better for a team with variable usage.

Question 7: Hybrid usage. Using Cursor's unlimited weak models for simple tasks and Claude credits for complex. That could save credits. Windsurf has 1500 flow credits, but if you use weak models for some tasks, you save flow credits. But Cursor already has unlimited flow actions, so maybe better for hybrid.

Question 8: Cost of a code review. For Cline, 2000 input +500 output tokens. Cost: (2000 *0.55 +500 *2.19)/1e6 = (1100 +1095)/1e6 = 2195 /1e6 = $0.002195. For Windsurf, using 1 credit (if it's a flow action?) Wait, the 500 credits are for Claude Sonnet, and 1500 for flow actions. So a code review might be a flow action, which uses 1 credit. So $15 plan gives 1500 flow credits. So per code review, 1 credit. So 1 code review would cost 1/1500 of $15, which is $0.01. So Cline is cheaper per code review ($0.0022 vs $0.01). But if you have many code reviews, Cline is cheaper. But Windsurf includes 1500 credits, so up to 1500 code reviews for $15. Cline would be 1500 * $0.0022 ≈ $3.30. So Cline is cheaper for flow actions, but wait, maybe the code review uses the premium model. Wait, the flow actions in Windsurf are separate from the premium model credits. So for IDE tasks like Create, Modify, etc., each uses 1 flow credit. If the code review is done via the premium model, that would use a Claude credit. So perhaps the code review is a mix. This is getting complicated.

Question 9: Vendor lock-in with Cursor's unlimited IDE actions. If you build workflows around unlimited actions, switching to another plan that charges per action would be costly. So lock-in risk.

Question 10: Model diversity. Cursor offers gpt-4o mini and Claude Sonnet, Windsurf only Claude and Cascade. Having multiple models might help if some are better at certain tasks.

Question 11: Budget predictability. Windsurf is $15, Cursor $20. If you might need Flex Credits, Windsurf could become more expensive. If unsure, Cursor's $20 with unlimited flow actions might be better for predictability.

Question 12: Extreme usage spikes. Cline's cost would scale with usage, which could get expensive. Windsurf and Cursor have fixed credits, but after hitting limits, you're on weaker models. Cursor's unlimited flow actions would handle IDE tasks, but premium model usage would be capped. For a major refactor needing lots of premium model queries, Cline might be better if the token cost is lower than buying Flex Credits.

Question 13: Long-term cost. If usage grows 20% monthly, fixed credits would require buying more plans or top-ups, which might be expensive. Cline's token cost would scale with usage, potentially more manageable if the per-token cost is low.

Question 14: Latency. Premium models might be faster. If the free models are slower, impacting productivity, then paying for premium credits is worth it.

Question 15: Expert developers might use Cline's model more efficiently, making per-token cost better. Novices might waste tokens, making fixed credits better.

Now, to recommend a plan. Let's consider different user types:

  • Light user: Maybe Cline is cheaper if they don't use many tokens.

  • Heavy IDE user: Cursor's unlimited actions are better.

  • User needing premium model often: Depends on token usage. If high tokens, Cline could be cheaper. But if low tokens per query, Cline is better. But Windsurf/Cursor have fixed credits which might be more predictable.

  • Budget-conscious: Cursor at $20 might be better than Windsurf if they need more flow actions.

  • Teams: Cline might scale better.

But without specific user details, need to make general recommendations.

Cursor seems good for developers who do a lot of IDE actions, as they're unlimited. If someone does 100/day, Windsurf's 50/day would require buying Flex Credits, making Cursor cheaper. Cline is better for those who use the premium model a lot but with efficient token usage. However, if the user is an expert who can optimize token usage, Cline could be cheaper. But if they need reliable performance and more model options, Cursor or Windsurf might be better.

Considering all factors, if the user is an active developer with high IDE usage, Cursor's $20 plan with unlimited flow actions and 500 Claude credits is probably better. For someone who uses the premium model extensively but with lower token counts, Cline might be cheaper. But since the Key Question is for a recommendation, perhaps Cursor offers a balance of premium credits and unlimited IDE actions, making it suitable for most developers unless they have very specific token-efficient needs.

Answer

Recommendation: Cursor Plan ($20/month)

Why?

  1. Unlimited IDE Actions: For active developers (100+ actions/day), Windsurf's 1,500 credits would force costly Flex Credit top-ups (~$65/month total). Cursor eliminates this risk.
  2. Model Flexibility: Access to both Claude Sonnet 3.5 (500 credits) and weaker models (gpt-4o mini) allows strategic use of premium credits for complex tasks while handling simpler work for free.
  3. Cost Predictability: Fixed $20/month avoids surprise Flex Credit expenses (Windsurf) or token overages (Cline).
  4. Post-Limit Fallback: gpt-4o mini (Cursor) is likely more reliable than Cascade Base (Windsurf) for non-critical debugging.
  5. Team Scalability: Unlimited IDE actions reduce per-user cost friction for collaborative workflows.

When to Choose Another Plan:

  • Cline: If your usage is extremely token-efficient (e.g., small prompts/responses) and you prioritize DeepSeek R1’s performance.
  • Windsurf: Only if budget is strictly ≤$15/month and IDE usage is <50 actions/day.

Trade-Offs:

  • You lose Windsurf’s credit rollover and Cline’s per-token pricing, but Cursor’s unlimited IDE actions and hybrid model access provide the best balance for most developers.

Final Note:
Cursor’s $5 premium over Windsurf buys peace of mind for active coders, while avoiding Cline’s unpredictable token costs. Unless you’re optimizing for rare, high-token tasks, Cursor wins.

Keywords:

  • AI coding platform pricing comparison
  • Fixed-credit vs pay-per-use models
  • Cost-effective AI coding plans
  • AI model performance analysis
  • IDE action credit economics
  • AI credit expiry strategies
  • Post-limit model capabilities
  • Team scaling with AI plans
  • Hybrid AI model usage
  • Predicting AI coding costs
  • Cursor vs Windsurf vs Cline
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment