Vibe Coding Battle

Cursor vs JetBrains AI

The definitive head-to-head comparison for Vibe Coders.

Cursor logo - Cursor vs JetBrains AI comparison

Cursor

92Vibe Score
4.5/5
G2 Trusted Score
VS
JetBrains AI logo - Cursor vs JetBrains AI comparison

JetBrains AI

85Vibe Score

Cursor vs JetBrains AI comparison: discover which platform fits your Vibe Coding workflow with a quick snapshot of pricing, categories, and standout strengths. This head-to-head overview highlights what makes each option unique so searchers and builders immediately see the differentiators.

The Winner

Cursor is the Vibe Coding Champion

Try Cursor Free

Why these tools are being compared

Both Cursor and JetBrains AI compete for builders who want fast, AI-assisted creation without losing control of their stack. Cursor leans on full ide with ai-native features while JetBrains AI emphasizes native jetbrains integration, so this matchup helps clarify which strengths matter most for your next launch.

Feature and pricing takeaways

On pricing, Cursor offers free / $20/mo and up, whereas JetBrains AI lists included / paid add-on. Feature-wise, Cursor shines with full ide with ai-native features and autocomplete and intelligent refactoring, while JetBrains AI stands out for native jetbrains integration and project-aware context. If you care about AI speed and responsiveness, compare the Vibe Score dimensions below to see which tool keeps your flow steady.

Who should choose each tool

Choose Cursor if you need Professional Developers and want a stack centered on Developer IDEs & Agents. Pick JetBrains AI when you value JetBrains Users and prefer a tool that matches AI Assistants & Code Review. If you simply want the highest overall Vibe Score, the winner banner above makes that choice obvious.

Interface Comparison

Cursor

Cursor interface screenshot showing key features and workflow

Side-by-side interface comparison

Vibe Score Breakdown

Cursor vibe coding tool logoCursor

Flow State
95/100
AI Intelligence
90/100
Speed
85/100
Vibe Factor
98/100

JetBrains AI vibe coding tool logoJetBrains AI

Flow State
85/100
AI Intelligence
85/100
Speed
80/100
Vibe Factor
75/100

Feature Showdown

FeatureCursorJetBrains AI
PricingFree / $20/mo and upIncluded / Paid add-on
Trusted Rating4.5/5 (G2)N/A
Primary CategoryDeveloper IDEs & AgentsAI Assistants & Code Review
Best ForProfessional DevelopersJetBrains Users
Key StrengthFull IDE with AI-native featuresNative JetBrains integration
AI ModelIntegratedIntegrated

FAQs: Cursor vs JetBrains AI

What is the main difference between Cursor and JetBrains AI?
Cursor focuses on full ide with ai-native features while JetBrains AI highlights native jetbrains integration. Both target vibe coding workflows, but their onboarding, AI depth, and pricing models feel different.
Which tool is better for speed and flow?
Cursor leads in the Flow State dimension of the Vibe Score, so teams wanting fewer interruptions and faster loops should start there.
How do Cursor and JetBrains AI compare on pricing?
Cursor lists free / $20/mo and up, whereas JetBrains AI offers included / paid add-on. Consider which aligns with your budget and whether you need free tiers, seat-based plans, or bundled AI features.
Who should choose Cursor vs JetBrains AI?
Cursor fits teams that value Professional Developers, while JetBrains AI suits those prioritizing JetBrains Users. If you need category-specific guardrails, start with the tool that matches your daily workflows.

In summary, Cursor vs JetBrains AI comes down to how you prioritize speed, AI assistance, and pricing flexibility. Scan the feature showdown, Vibe Score charts, and FAQs to match your workflow, then jump into the free trials to feel which experience delivers the best vibe.

Ready to make your choice?

Try both tools for free and discover which one fits your vibe coding workflow

Cursor logo

Cursor

Cursor - AI-Powered IDE

Professional DevelopersLarge Codebases
Try Cursor Free →
JetBrains AI logo

JetBrains AI

JetBrains AI Assistant

JetBrains UsersJava/Kotlin Devs
Try JetBrains AI Free →