My 600 Hours with AI Coding Assistants: A Practical Comparison
by bv_dev | 2025-05-14 16:40:27+00:00
After spending over 600 hours using various AI coding assistants over the past 3 months, I wanted to share my experience for those navigating this rapidly evolving landscape.

What I Mean by "Agentic Mode" First, to clarify: by "agentic mode," I'm referring to the assistant's ability to understand project context, reason through multi-step problems, and autonomously make coherent code changes across files without constant hand-holding. True agency means the tool can maintain context across interactions and execute on high-level directions.

The Current Landscape (May 2025) Augment Code - Current go-to tool despite higher costs

Strengths: Maintains context remarkably well across complex refactors; actually understands project structure; can implement feature requests that span multiple files Weaknesses: More expensive than alternatives ($30/month vs $20 for others); occasional hallucinations when venturing outside codebase context Best for: Complex refactoring tasks and implementing features that span multiple files

Windsurf - Slightly edges out Cursor for agentic capabilities

Strengths: Better context retention than Cursor; decent file traversal; good understanding of code relationships Weaknesses: Can get quite stuck in their full agentic mode as it starts editing things. While they have removed their flow credits part, it is still painful to watch it go completely out of context. Best for: Mid-size projects where you need moderate autonomy

Cursor - Popular but underwhelming for true agentic work

Strengths: Good IDE integration; clean interface; works reasonably well for single-file tasks. I like the ability to Cmd+K and insert a bulk of code in the middle. Also, I like the @Docs feature to bring latest documentation for popular libraries.

Weaknesses: Context falls apart in agentic mode; often loses track of previous instructions; requires excessive prompting Best for: Single-file optimizations and modifications, but not complex cross-file tasks

Claude Code - Declining quality since public beta

Strengths: Used to have superior reasoning and contextual understanding 3 months ago Weaknesses: Super expensive (like always), but recent updates have significantly degraded agentic capabilities; now requires much more hand-holding than before as it goes compleltely off base. Best for: Simple tasks that don't require deep contextual understanding Note: Most disappointing decline in quality - was previously much more capable. I spent $500 in Feb-Mar and thought it was worth.

Cline, Roo, and Aider - Conceptually interesting but practically limited

Strengths: Cline has good terminal integration; Roo offers interesting visualization; Aider has straightforward CLI Weaknesses: All three struggle with maintaining context; limited understanding of project structure; frequent need to repeat instructions Best for: Very simple, isolated coding tasks or experiments

Real-world Performance Differences The gap between these tools becomes most apparent when trying to implement complex features. For example, when asked to "add user authentication with email verification to my Express app":

Augment Code: Identified relevant files, added middleware, routes, and email service integration, then explained how the pieces fit together Windsurf/Cursor: Added authentication to single files I pointed at but needed explicit instructions for each additional component Others: Generally required file-by-file guidance with frequent context reminders

Conclusion If budget isn't a concern, Augment Code currently offers the most truly agentic experience, but still has a long way to go. For more budget-conscious developers, Windsurf slightly edges out Cursor for agentic capabilities, though both still require significant guidance for complex tasks.