It's still my primary at work (data engineering/platform engineering), running a mix of GPT-5.5 and Composer 2.5. We also have Claude Code subscriptions. I find myself preferring Cursor for most tasks.

70% of the time I use AI agents on a pretty tight leash. I often reject edits and ask it to change things. The IDE integration is really efficient for this workflow compared to Claude (yes, I've tried the Claude extensions).

Autocomplete is still the best available (I've tried both Copilot and Zed); though admittedly it's not as important as it was circa last year.

For the 30% simpler or very well-specced tasks their cloud agents are last I compared way better than Claude Code's/Codex's version of the concept. @cursor for quick fixes in Slack works quite well. Don't get me wrong, it's still quite under-documented, but the others are worse. The integrations with linear, Slack and github are well executed

Composer 2.5 is really fast in their harness at code search/explanation/Q&A tasks (much faster than Sonnet/Opus). It's also really good at debugging, very proactive compared to other models in the same size/prices class IMO. Just due to the speed I actually prefer it to almost any other model for these tasks. I suspect at least some of this may be due to the harness and good codebase indexing.

I don't know why people are down on the Cursor harness. It's good. The main advantage of Claude Code/Codex are the token subsidies; but according to their dashboard I am costing my employer between $100-200/month on Cursor, so the overall price is comparable and only narrowing now that Anthropic is switching many enterprises to API usage.

I also don't understand the people complaining about VSCode bloat and in the same sentence praising Claude Code. Claude Code often uses MORE RAM than Cursor, has a super unstable UI (on my home machine there is input lag when typing ANYTHING in Claude Code) and the desktop app version of CC barely works. The Codex TUI is genuinely nice and snappy, on the other hand.