muxd vs Cursor: How They Compare

If you're evaluating AI coding tools, Cursor is probably near the top of your list. It's a polished VS Code fork with AI woven into every surface -- tab completion, inline editing, a chat sidebar, and multi-model support. It's good. So where does muxd fit in, and why would you consider a Cursor alternative?

This isn't a takedown. Both tools are effective for different reasons. But they represent fundamentally different philosophies about how AI should integrate with your workflow, and that shapes everything else.

The Core Difference: IDE vs Terminal Agent

Cursor is an IDE. Specifically, it's a VS Code fork with AI baked in. It sees your open files, your tabs, your selections. The AI lives inside the editor, which means tight visual integration and low friction for small edits. But it also means you need their desktop app, and you work the way VS Code works.

muxd is a terminal-native agent. It's not an IDE and it's not an extension. It runs as a background daemon alongside whatever editor you already use -- VS Code, Neovim, Emacs, Helix, or just plain vim over SSH. It's a terminal AI coding agent that doesn't care about your editor choice, and it keeps working after you close the terminal.

Feature Comparison

When to Choose muxd

You don't want to switch editors

Cursor asks you to adopt a new IDE. If you've spent years configuring Neovim, or you work on remote servers over SSH, or you simply don't use VS Code, that's a non-starter. muxd is editor-agnostic -- it runs in a terminal pane beside whatever you already use.

You want a daemon, not an app

muxd's daemon architecture means your agent survives terminal closes, SSH disconnects, and reboots. Kick off a large refactor, close your laptop, and check the results later from any terminal or from Telegram on your phone. Cursor's AI lives inside the app window -- close it and the work pauses.

You want full provider freedom

Both tools support multiple models, but muxd connects to any OpenAI-compatible endpoint, including local models through Ollama. You bring your own API keys and pay only what you use. There's no subscription, no usage caps, and no code routed through a third-party server.

You care about open source

muxd is Apache 2.0. Fork it, modify it, self-host it, audit it. Cursor is proprietary and closed source. If transparency and control over your toolchain matter to you, this is a meaningful difference.

When to Choose Cursor

You live in VS Code

If VS Code is home and you don't plan to leave, Cursor's integration is hard to beat. Tab completions that understand your current file, inline edits triggered from a selection, and a chat sidebar that sees your workspace -- all without leaving the editor. That tight loop is genuinely productive.

You want AI in the editing surface

Cursor excels at small, contextual edits: highlight a block, ask for a change, accept or reject. The AI is embedded in the editing experience itself. muxd works at the task level -- you describe what you want in a conversation, and the agent reads and writes files on your behalf. Different interaction models for different kinds of work.

You prefer a managed experience

Cursor handles model access, updates, and configuration behind a subscription. If you'd rather not manage API keys or think about provider selection, the all-in-one package simplifies things.

Try It Yourself

The best muxd vs Cursor comparison is the one you run on your own codebase. Install muxd with a single command:

curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/batalabs/muxd/main/install.sh | bash

The getting started guide will have you running in under a minute. Use it alongside your current editor -- including Cursor, if you want. They're not mutually exclusive. But you might find that a persistent, provider-agnostic terminal AI coding agent fits your workflow better than an IDE you didn't ask for.