Cursor vs Kilo Code
Cursor vs Kilo Code, compared side by side on 18 data points: what each one does, how big it is, what it has raised, the tech running each site, and what users report. We score both out of 100 on traction, team and visibility: Cursor is on 77/100 and Kilo Code on 24/100.
Where each one leads
Cursor
- our overall score: 77/100 against 24/100
- domain rating: 90/100 against 76/100
- headcount: 1,081 against 46
- LinkedIn following: 361,335 against 7,513
Kilo Code
- agent readiness: 55/100 against 47/100
At a glance
| Measure | Cursor | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | An AI-native code editor that helps developers write, understand, and manage code more efficiently. | Open-source, agentic AI coding tool for VS Code, combining Cline and Roo Code features. |
| Category | Artificial Intelligence, Developer Tools, AI Coding Assistant, Code Editor | Agentic AI, AI Coding Assistant, AI Copilot, Developer Tools |
| Sells toBusiness model | B2B | Open Source |
| Offering | Software | Software |
| Founded | 2022 | Not published |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, United States | San Francisco, United States |
| Status | Active | Active |
Size, funding and growth
| Measure | Cursor | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Employees | 1,081 | 46 |
| Headcount growthLast 12 months | +500.0% | Not published |
| Total funding | $2.9B | Not published |
| Latest round | Funding Round | Not published |
| Valuation | $50B | Not published |
| LinkedIn followers | 361,335 | 7,513 |
StartupHub scores
Our own 0-100 ratings. They measure company strength and site quality, not which product suits you.
| Measure | Cursor | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|
| StartupHub scoreOur 0-100 rating | 77/100 | 24/100 |
| Traction | 60/100 | 17/100 |
| Team | 30/100 | Not published |
| Community | 8/100 | Not published |
| Search visibility | 83/100 | 43/100 |
| Quality | 93/100 | Not published |
| Agent readinessHow well an AI agent can read and act on the site | D (47/100) | D (55/100) |
| Domain ratingLink authority, 0-100 | 90/100 | 76/100 |
Technology
Detected on each public site, so it reflects the marketing stack as well as the product.
| Measure | Cursor | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Vercel | Vercel |
| CDN | Vercel | Vercel |
| CMS | Ghost | Not detected |
| Frameworks | Next.js, Tailwind CSS | Next.js, Tailwind CSS |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
Product and pricing
| Measure | Cursor | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Current offer | 50% off first month of Pro, Pro+, or Ultra | Not published |
Cursor vs Kilo Code: common questions
Which is better, Cursor or Kilo Code?
On our 0-100 score Cursor rates higher (77/100 against 24/100). The score weights traction, team, visibility and profile completeness, so it reflects company strength rather than which product suits you. We compare the two on 18 data points above: read the rows that match what you are buying for.
How do Cursor and Kilo Code compare on the numbers?
Cursor leads on our overall score (77/100 against 24/100), domain rating (90/100 against 76/100), headcount (1,081 against 46), LinkedIn following (361,335 against 7,513). Kilo Code leads on agent readiness (55/100 against 47/100).
Read the full Cursor review and pricing or the Kilo Code review and pricing. You can also browse other Cursor alternatives we track.