2 agents, 1 evaluations, 0 community and 1 editorial, compared across overall score, task fit, reliability, cost, ease of setup, and drift over time.
Current verdict: Cursor is the only agent here with current scored evaluations; use the other profile as context rather than a head-to-head winner.
Current signal
last 90 days
Freshness
No loaded evaluations from the last 90 days
Version context
reviews now ask model/runtime and tier
AI-agent quality changes with model releases, CLI/client updates, pricing limits, and vendor defaults. Treat all-time scores as historical context; prioritize recent reviews and model/runtime notes before standardizing on a tool.
Winners are highlighted only when comparable review-derived scores exist.
1 evaluations considered
Weighted aggregate verdict across the review.
No review data yet.
4.7/5 source average.
How well the agent matches the job users hired it for.
No review data yet.
4.8/5 source average.
Consistency, uptime, and repeatability under real workflows.
No review data yet.
4.5/5 source average.
How quickly teams can get from signup to useful output.
No review data yet.
4.8/5 source average.
Whether the results justify the seat, usage, or platform cost.
No review data yet.
4.2/5 source average.
How well quality holds up over longer sessions and releases.
No review data yet.
4.5/5 source average.
A truthful, data-backed summary of where each agent stands today.
Stably AI · Coding Agents
Open-source desktop environment with mobile companions for running Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and other CLI coding agents in parallel. Each agent works in an isolated Git worktree, with integrated terminals, diffs, a browser, and remote-workspace support.
Anysphere · Coding Agents
Cursor is the most popular AI-powered IDE, built as a fork of VS Code with deep model integration across autocomplete, chat, and inline edits. It supports multiple frontier models and has become the reference point for all coding agent comparisons. Its CMD+K and Composer features enable both single-file edits and full multi-file agentic workflows.
Static facts from the Ruling catalog, not prototype estimates.
Pricing and model availability change quickly. Ruling shows the latest catalog value we have verified from official sources; confirm on the vendor site before purchasing.
Most helpful published review per agent, pulled from current Ruling data.
Orca needs more community signal before Ruling can surface a most-helpful review.
Ruling editorial benchmark: Cursor remains the strongest default for product engineers who want chat, inline edits, and multi-file changes inside a familiar VS Code-style workflow. It is fastest when the codebase is already organized and the user can review each patch carefully. The main limitation is that large refactors still need a senior engineer shaping the plan and checking edge cases.
If you are comparing these agents, these nearby alternatives are worth opening next.
Claude Code leads by 8.7 on current Ruling scores; compare it against Orca before shortlisting.
Codex CLI leads by 9.2 on current Ruling scores; compare it against Orca before shortlisting.
Aider leads by 8.8 on current Ruling scores; compare it against Orca before shortlisting.
Send the URL to teammates when you need a compact, review-backed agent shortlist.
/compare/orca-vs-cursor
