Cursor vs Sourcegraph Cody
Independent side-by-side comparison — trust scores, security compliance, legal risk, and community signals.
Cursor
2026-W14
38/100
EXTENDEDEVALUATION
VS
Sourcegraph Cody
2026-W14
32/100
EXTENDEDEVALUATION
★ WINNER
Trust & Risk Scores
| Category | Cursor | Sourcegraph Cody | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust Score | 38/100 | 32/100 | ◀ |
| Security Score | 65/100 | 88/100 | ▶ |
| Legal Risk Score | 85/100 | 25/100 | ▶ |
| Financial Stability | 90/100 | 25/100 | ◀ |
| Integration Score | 45/100 | 60/100 | ▶ |
Compliance & Security
| Certification / Feature | Cursor | Sourcegraph Cody | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | ✅ | ✅ | = |
| ISO 27001 | ❌ | ✅ | ▶ |
| GDPR | ⚠️ | ✅ | ▶ |
| HIPAA | ✅ | ✅ | = |
| SSO | ✅ | ✅ | = |
| IP Indemnification | ⚠️ | ⚠️ |
Community Signals
| Signal | Cursor | Sourcegraph Cody | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Mentions | 10 | 45 | ▶ |
| Negative Mentions | 20 | 20 |
Pros & Cons
Cursor
✅ Pros
- Powerful multi-file refactoring and code generation capabilities.
- Highly-valued 'BugBot' feature for automated pull request reviews.
- SOC 2 Type II compliance provides a baseline for enterprise security.
- Extremely well-funded and financially stable vendor.
❌ Cons
- Prohibitively expensive and unpredictable usage-based pricing model.
- Critical security deficiencies in default account settings.
- Ambiguous data training policy creates significant IP and confidentiality risk.
- No IP indemnification for AI-generated code.
- Polarizing new UI (Cursor 3) is considered a regression by many users.
- History of CVEs related to remote code execution.
Sourcegraph Cody
✅ Pros
- Unparalleled code intelligence and context awareness for large, multi-repository codebases.
- Strong portfolio of enterprise-grade security certifications (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, FedRAMP).
- Offers self-hosting options for maximum data control.
❌ Cons
- Critical vendor stability risk due to corporate split and pivot to a new product ('Amp').
- Unacceptable legal and IP risks in the standard Terms of Service (ambiguous data training, no IP indemnification).
- Opaque, enterprise-only pricing model with high potential for cost factors that may not be immediately visible in initial pricing.
- Weaker code generation capabilities compared to market leaders.
Segment Fit
| Segment | Cursor | Sourcegraph Cody |
|---|---|---|
| Startup (1–50) | Caution | Caution |
| Midmarket (50–500) | Caution | Caution |
| Enterprise (500+) | Caution | Caution |
📋 Our Assessment
Sourcegraph Cody leads this comparison with a trust score of 32/100 vs 38/100.
For security-conscious teams, Sourcegraph Cody has the stronger compliance posture (88/100 vs 65/100).
Read full reports: Cursor Report → | Sourcegraph Cody Report →