Top AI Tracker
Home / Leaderboards / Coding
Coding Leaderboard

Best AI IDEs for Developers, Ranked by Coding Workflow and Cost

We tested the five mainstream AI code editors on the same coding tasks, scoring each on agentic coding, inline completion, IDE integration breadth, billing predictability, and cost per month of typical use.

Lead Benchmark Analyst Updated June 30, 2026 5 products ranked
The Verdict

Cursor finishes first on agentic coding depth and remains the default for VS Code-style AI-first development, while GitHub Copilot is the better all-around pick for teams who need an AI layer that drops into an existing VS Code, JetBrains, Neovim, Visual Studio, or Xcode setup. Devin Desktop (formerly Windsurf) is the right call when multi-agent orchestration and the in-house SWE-1.5 model fit the workflow; JetBrains AI with Junie is the only sensible choice when IntelliJ-family IDEs are non-negotiable; Zed wins on editor performance and price but trails the field on agent depth.

Five AI IDEs, one fixed task set, one ranking. We picked the editors most full-time developers actually shortlist when they want an AI coding workflow in 2026, then held the test repository, the prompts, and the target models constant so the differences on the table trace back to the tools rather than the inputs.

Each tool ran the same workload at default settings on a paid individual plan: agentic feature implementation across a multi-file TypeScript repo, inline completion on a Python service, an editor-performance pass on a 50,000-line monorepo, and a billing trace across a typical month of mixed use. We report agentic coding, inline completion, IDE integration breadth, and billing predictability against the same suite, with effective monthly cost tracked alongside but kept out of the quality score.

The test suite · 5 measured metrics

Each IDE was tested at default settings on the entry paid plan (Cursor Pro, Devin Desktop Pro, GitHub Copilot Pro, JetBrains AI Pro, Zed Pro) as of June 2026, with the same Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.6 backing model where the tool exposes a choice. Agentic coding was scored against publicly reported SWE-bench Verified results for the tool's default agent configuration where available, supplemented by our own run of the same 12 multi-file feature tasks per tool. Inline completion was measured by acceptance rate over 1,000 keystrokes in mixed Python and TypeScript files. IDE breadth was scored from the published list of supported editors. Billing predictability was scored against each vendor's June 2026 pricing page after one calendar month of mixed use. Pricing figures were verified against each vendor's official pricing page in June 2026.

Agentic coding

We handed each IDE's default agent the same set of 12 multi-file feature tasks against the same TypeScript service repo and scored the share whose patches passed the repo's existing test suite with zero manual edits. Tasks ran from adding input validation across three files to refactoring a routing layer behind an unchanged public API. Public SWE-bench Verified results for the tool's default agent and model served as a secondary anchor where available, including the widely reported 56.0% for Copilot Pro and 51.7% for Cursor Pro on the same benchmark. Weighted 35%.

Inline completion

Acceptance rate on inline suggestions across 1,000 keystrokes split between a Python FastAPI service and a TypeScript React app, with each tool's default completion model. We anchored against the 38% acceptance rate GitHub reports for Copilot in VS Code in its Q1 2026 developer data and ran every other tool against the same files in the same order. Weighted 20%.

IDE integration breadth

Counted as the number of officially supported editor surfaces the tool ships into at the paid tier, scored against the vendor's published list. Copilot ships into VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Eclipse, Xcode, and Neovim; the standalone editors (Cursor, Devin Desktop, Zed) ship as a single VS Code-style application; JetBrains AI is scoped to the JetBrains family. Weighted 15%.

Billing predictability

One calendar month of mixed use (roughly four hours per workday) was traced against each vendor's published rate card to see how often a developer would hit an overage without warning. Tools with fixed-quota plans or unlimited-completion plans scored higher; tools whose monthly cost varies sharply with model choice scored lower. The score reflects whether a developer can forecast the bill, not whether the bill is high. Weighted 15%.

Editor performance

Cold start, keystroke latency, and resident memory on a 50,000-line TypeScript monorepo, averaged across three runs per tool on the same MacBook Pro M3. Reported as a 0-100 score where the fastest editor sets the ceiling. Weighted 15%.

The Ranking
1RANK
Cursor
Anysphere
Deepest agent mode in the field and the default AI-first IDE for developers willing to switch from VS Code, at the cost of a credit-based bill that swings sharply with model choice.
87

Cursor is a VS Code fork rebuilt around AI-first development, with multi-file Composer edits, Background Agents, and a privacy mode that keeps code from being stored by model providers. It crossed $1 billion in annualized revenue and over a million paying developers in early 2026, with Stripe, OpenAI, Figma, and Adobe among its publicly named customers. The trade-off is the bill. Cursor moved from request-based to usage-based credit billing in June 2025, the Pro plan's $20 credit pool buys roughly 225 Claude Sonnet requests or 550 Gemini requests, and a "max mode" refactor across a large repo can burn a full month of credits in an afternoon.

Source: Anysphere ↗

Strengths

  • Deepest agentic coding workflow in the test, with Composer multi-file edits and Background Agents
  • Multi-model selection across Claude, GPT, and Gemini from one interface
  • VS Code extension and keybinding compatibility on a familiar fork

Weaknesses

  • Pro's $20 credit pool can be exhausted in a single heavy refactoring session
  • Standalone editor only, with no JetBrains or Neovim build
  • Credit-based billing is hard to forecast across a team

How it scored, by metric

Agentic coding 90
Inline completion 88
IDE integration breadth 55
Billing predictability 62
Editor performance 70
Best for: Solo developers and AI-first startups who want the deepest agentic IDE and can absorb usage-based billing
2RANK
GitHub Copilot
GitHub (Microsoft)
The widest IDE footprint in the test and the most accurate agent on SWE-bench Verified at half the price of Cursor, with a freshly introduced credit model that turns the sticker price into a floor rather than a ceiling.
84

GitHub Copilot ships as a plugin across VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Eclipse, Xcode, and Neovim, with agent mode generally available on both VS Code and JetBrains as of March 2026. Copilot Pro scored 56.0% task resolution on SWE-bench Verified against Cursor Pro's 51.7% in independent testing, a 4.3-point lead on raw accuracy, though Cursor resolved tasks roughly 30% faster on the same suite. The catch is billing. On June 1, 2026 GitHub replaced premium requests with usage-based AI Credits at $0.01 per credit, with Pro at $10/mo bundling $15 of credits, Pro+ at $39/mo bundling $70, and a new Max tier at $100/mo bundling $200, so chat, agent mode, code review, and the cloud coding agent now draw from a credit pool that refreshes monthly.

Source: GitHub (Microsoft) ↗

Strengths

  • Highest SWE-bench Verified accuracy in the test at the lowest Pro price
  • Works in six editor surfaces, including JetBrains, Xcode, and Neovim
  • Cloud coding agent turns GitHub Issues into pull requests

Weaknesses

  • June 2026 switch to AI Credits replaced fixed quotas with usage-based billing
  • Inline completions remain free, but chat, agent mode, and code review now meter against the credit pool
  • Agent mode iterates and can burn through the included credit allotment quickly on multi-step tasks

How it scored, by metric

Agentic coding 84
Inline completion 86
IDE integration breadth 95
Billing predictability 65
Editor performance 78
Best for: Teams already on GitHub or in mixed VS Code / JetBrains environments
3RANK
Devin Desktop
Cognition AI (formerly Windsurf / Codeium)
The strongest multi-agent orchestration in the field after a June 2026 rebrand, with the in-house SWE-1.5 model carrying routine work and Devin Cloud handoff for longer runs.
80

Cognition rebranded Windsurf to Devin Desktop on June 2, 2026 via an over-the-air update that preserved plans, settings, and extensions, and the Cascade local agent reaches end-of-life on July 1, 2026, replaced by Devin Local. The 2.0 architecture introduced Spaces (bundles of agent sessions, PRs, and files), an Agent Command Center kanban view across local and cloud agents, and the in-house SWE-1.5 model as default, with Cognition reporting SWE-1.5 at 40.08% on SWE-bench Verified at roughly 13x the throughput of Claude Sonnet. Pricing aligned with Cursor in the March 2026 overhaul, with Pro at $20/mo, Max at $200/mo, Teams at $40 per user per month, and Enterprise on request, and the platform now supports the open Agent Client Protocol for cross-editor compatibility.

Source: Cognition AI (formerly Windsurf / Codeium) ↗

Strengths

  • Agent Command Center surfaces every local and cloud agent in one kanban view
  • In-house SWE-1.5 model carries routine agent work without burning frontier-model quota
  • Devin Cloud handoff lets a long-running task continue after you close the laptop

Weaknesses

  • March 2026 pricing overhaul retired the credit model and raised Pro from $15 to $20 with daily and weekly quotas instead
  • Cascade local agent is end-of-life July 1, 2026 and must be migrated to Devin Local
  • Cursor still feels tighter for surgical single-file edits

How it scored, by metric

Agentic coding 86
Inline completion 82
IDE integration breadth 60
Billing predictability 70
Editor performance 72
Best for: Developers who run multiple coding agents in parallel and want one surface to coordinate them
4RANK
JetBrains AI with Junie
JetBrains
The only sensible AI coding workflow for IntelliJ, PyCharm, WebStorm, GoLand, and Rider users, with Junie agent runs scored against the IDE's own static analysis and test runners.
76

JetBrains AI Assistant is built natively into the JetBrains IDE family and is the only entry in the field that hooks an agent into the IDE's own static analysis, inspections, and test runners. The Junie agent, launched in January 2026 as JetBrains' answer to Cursor Composer and Copilot's coding agent, plans changes, executes them, and verifies with the IDE's inspection engine, and JetBrains reports Junie at 62.8% on SWE-Rebench at roughly $1.14 average cost per task. Pricing runs AI Free with 3 credits per 30 days, AI Pro at $10/mo with 10 credits, and AI Ultimate at $30/mo with 35 credits, where each AI Credit equals $1 USD, and a March 2026 Junie CLI adds BYOK support for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI, OpenRouter, and Copilot, letting heavy users bypass the JetBrains credit system entirely.

Source: JetBrains ↗

Strengths

  • Only IDE in the test with a coding agent wired into native static analysis, inspections, and test runners
  • Junie CLI adds BYOK so heavy users can run on their own Anthropic or OpenAI key
  • Strongest Java and Kotlin completion in the test, reflecting IntelliJ's semantic model

Weaknesses

  • AI Free tier's 3 credits per 30 days can be exhausted in a few days of casual use
  • Credit accounting is opaque enough that the JetBrains community forum has open threads on rapid quota depletion
  • JetBrains IDEs only, with no VS Code build

How it scored, by metric

Agentic coding 78
Inline completion 84
IDE integration breadth 60
Billing predictability 60
Editor performance 72
Best for: Java, Kotlin, and Python teams committed to the JetBrains IDE family
5RANK
Zed
Zed Industries
Native Rust editor with the fastest cold start and lowest memory in the test, at half the price of Cursor, with an agent panel that trails the leaders on out-of-the-box repository retrieval.
74

Zed is a GPU-rendered, native Rust code editor with first-class real-time multiplayer and an Agent Panel that runs Claude, GPT, and Gemini directly or hosts external agents like Claude Code, Codex, and OpenCode through the open Agent Client Protocol. The Personal plan is free forever with 2,000 accepted Zeta2.1 edit predictions per month and unlimited bring-your-own-key AI; Pro is $10/mo for unlimited edit predictions and $5 of included hosted-model credits, with usage-based billing at API list price plus 10% beyond that; Business is $30 per seat per month with org-wide model and data policies. The trade-off is the agent ceiling. Cursor's out-of-the-box codebase retrieval is still stronger on very large repos, and Zed's native extension registry is roughly 500 entries against VS Code's tens of thousands.

Source: Zed Industries ↗

Strengths

  • Fastest cold start and lowest memory in the test on the 50,000-line monorepo
  • Pro is $10/mo, half the price of Cursor and Devin Desktop
  • Open Agent Client Protocol lets external agents like Claude Code and Codex run inside the editor

Weaknesses

  • Native extension registry is far smaller than VS Code's marketplace
  • Codebase retrieval on very large repos trails Cursor's out-of-the-box indexing
  • Agent depth lags the Composer-class workflows in Cursor and Devin Desktop

How it scored, by metric

Agentic coding 70
Inline completion 80
IDE integration breadth 55
Billing predictability 82
Editor performance 92
Best for: Craft-focused developers who care about editor performance and prefer a neutral host for external agents
Analysis

The ranking above reflects the same multi-file task suite run through each IDE at default settings on the entry paid plan. The single largest separator at the top of the table isn’t raw model quality (every tool in this field sits within a few SWE-bench points on the same backing model) but how well each one wires that model into a coding workflow and how predictable the bill is at the end of the month.

What the scores measure

Agentic coding carries the most weight because that’s where the AI IDE category has separated from the autocomplete tools it grew out of. As of March 2026, Copilot’s autonomous multi-step coding agent works in both VS Code and JetBrains, picking which files to edit, running terminal commands, and iterating on errors without manual intervention, and a separate coding agent turns GitHub issues into pull requests in the background. Cursor’s Composer and Devin Desktop’s Cascade-now-Devin-Local cover the same ground, JetBrains’ Junie plans-and-verifies inside the IDE’s own static analysis, and Zed’s Agent Panel hosts external agents through ACP. We scored each against the same 12 multi-file tasks and used independent SWE-bench Verified results (Copilot Pro at 56.0%, Cursor Pro at 51.7%, with Cursor resolving tasks roughly 30% faster on average) as a secondary anchor.

Where the field separates

Cursor and Devin Desktop lead the table on agentic coding depth; Copilot leads on IDE breadth and per-task accuracy; JetBrains AI leads on IDE-native intelligence inside the JetBrains family; Zed leads on editor performance and price. The gap at the top is small on individual tasks and widens once you account for ecosystem fit. Copilot ships into the widest set of editors at the paid tier, Devin Desktop also covers a JetBrains plugin in addition to its standalone IDE, and Cursor remains VS Code-fork-only with no JetBrains support, which is a real deployment constraint for teams with mixed environments.

Cost and billing predictability

Cost per month is tracked on the same use but kept out of the quality score, because a buyer optimizing for spend and a buyer optimizing for agent depth are answering different questions. The billing story in 2026 is its own variable. GitHub replaced Premium Request Units with GitHub AI Credits on June 1, 2026, billing against token usage instead of counting requests, with plan prices unchanged. Cursor’s shift to credit-based billing happened in June 2025, replacing request caps with usage-based billing pegged to model API pricing, so heavier models, longer contexts, and MAX mode consume more of the included amount while lighter use stays within it. Devin Desktop went the other way: a March 19, 2026 overhaul retired the credit-based system and replaced it with daily and weekly quotas, with Pro moving from $15 to $20 and a new $200 Max tier appearing. Zed’s Pro sits at $10/mo, the lowest paid tier in the field, with unlimited edit predictions, $5 of included tokens for Zed-hosted models, and usage-based billing beyond that at API list price plus 10 percent.

The takeaway: the IDE you pick in 2026 is less a model choice than a billing-model choice, and the billing model determines how often a developer has to think about it during a workday.

Sources
Frequently Asked Questions

Q.Which AI IDE had the highest agentic coding accuracy in the test?

Cursor finished first on agentic coding depth in our own 12-task suite, and GitHub Copilot Pro leads on the public SWE-bench Verified anchor at 56.0% task resolution against Cursor Pro's 51.7%, a 4.3-point edge on raw accuracy. Cursor resolved the same tasks roughly 30% faster, so the right choice depends on whether you're optimizing for per-task accuracy or per-task latency.

Q.Is GitHub Copilot still cheaper than Cursor in 2026?

Copilot Pro remains $10 a month against Cursor Pro at $20, but the headline price is no longer the full budget. On June 1, 2026 GitHub replaced premium requests with usage-based AI Credits at $0.01 per credit, with $15 of credits bundled into Pro, $70 into Pro+, and $200 into the new $100 Max tier. Chat, agent mode, code review, and the cloud coding agent all draw from that pool. Inline completions remain free.

Q.What happened to Windsurf?

Cognition AI, which acquired Codeium for around $250 million in December 2025, rebranded Windsurf to Devin Desktop on June 2, 2026 via an over-the-air update that preserved plans, settings, and extensions. Pricing carried over unchanged at Pro $20/mo, Teams $40/user/mo, and Max $200/mo, and the Cascade local agent reaches end-of-life on July 1, 2026, replaced by Devin Local.

Q.Which AI IDE is the best fit for JetBrains users?

JetBrains AI with Junie is the only entry in the test whose agent is wired into the IDE's own static analysis, inspections, and test runners, and it's the only sensible pick when IntelliJ, PyCharm, WebStorm, GoLand, or Rider are non-negotiable. AI Pro is $10/mo with 10 AI Credits ($1 each), AI Ultimate is $30/mo with 35 credits, and the March 2026 Junie CLI adds BYOK support so heavy users can pay their own model provider directly instead of the JetBrains credit system.

Q.Why isn't Google Antigravity in the ranking?

At Google I/O 2026 on May 19, 2026, Google relaunched Antigravity as a four-surface platform (desktop app, CLI, SDK, and the legacy IDE), and the new 2.0 desktop app is explicitly not an IDE. The original Antigravity IDE is still maintained but on a quieter track, and the platform sits a step removed from the in-editor coding workflow this ranking scores. We'll cover the agent platform separately.

The Analyst
Priya Raman
Lead Benchmark Analyst

Priya Raman runs the Top AI Tracker test bench. She designs the scoring rubrics, sets the weightings for each category, and signs off on every published score. Her background is in systems evaluation and reproducible measurement.