6 Best Windsurf Alternatives I Tested in 2026

‍

I went looking for an old Windsurf bookmark last month, a doc I'd saved for a piece about AI coding tools, and found the tab title now read Devin Desktop. The bookmark still worked, but the product it opened had a new name and a much broader focus.

It made me wonder what counted as a Windsurf alternative now, so I worked through the main options, narrowed the field to six, and gave each one the same client management app brief. I tracked how they handled the build, where they ran into problems, and how their current pricing and documentation compared.

By the end, you'll know how each one is priced, what it's built for, and which one best fits the reason you were looking to switch in the first place.

Windsurf Is Now Devin Desktop

On June 2, 2026, Cognition renamed Windsurf to Devin Desktop. Existing users received it through a standard over-the-air update, with their plans, pricing, extensions, settings, keybindings, workflows, and in-progress work carried over.

The change followed Cognition’s July 14, 2025, agreement to acquire Windsurf’s product, intellectual property, brand, and remaining team. The deal came days after Google hired Windsurf’s CEO and several research leaders through a separate $2.4 billion licensing and recruiting agreement.

The more important change is how the product now works. Devin Local became the primary local agent, replacing Cascade, which remained available only through July 1, 2026.

Devin Desktop also makes the Agent Command Center its default surface. Its Kanban view brings local and cloud agents together, while the editor, extensions, and familiar coding workflows remain accessible.

Anyone comparing Windsurf alternatives today is therefore choosing against a product centered more heavily on agent management than the Windsurf editor they may remember.

How I Tested These Windsurf Alternatives

Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Cline, Codex, and Emergent each got this exact prompt:

Build a client management app called Northwind Client Hub for a marketing agency. Include a Clients table (Client Name, Company, Status, Monthly Retainer, Account Manager) and a Projects table (Project Name, linked Client, Status, Due Date, Priority, Assigned To, Budget).

Automatically flag a project as "Overdue" if its Due Date has passed and Status isn't "Complete," and notify the Assigned To person that the project is late and that they should reach out to the client to request a deadline extension. Flag a project as "At Risk" instead if its Due Date is within the next 3 days and Status isn't "Complete," with its own notification.

Clients should log in and see only their own linked projects, view-only, no editing access. Add client-side messaging so clients can reply to the agency from their portal, and let admins message clients back and other admins as well.

This is a demo. Authentication should accept any email and password for both clients and agency staff, no real verification needed. Don't wire up real email for the notifications, just show that one was sent, for example, a line saying an email was sent to acme@northwind.com. Admin and agency staff have full create, edit, and delete access, client users are view-only and limited to their own linked projects. Seed the app with sample clients, projects, and two demo accounts, one admin and one client, ready to test immediately. Give it a distinctive aesthetic that fits the name Northwind, nautical or maritime, not a generic dashboard look.

A finished-looking screen wasn't the bar. I checked whether each app followed the access rules, granted staff full create, edit, and delete controls, applied the Overdue and At Risk logic correctly, sent the appropriate notifications, and supported bidirectional messaging. 

I also recorded setup problems, broken features, follow-up prompts, and the amount of work remaining before the app could be shared.

I tested each tool in its normal working environment. Cursor and GitHub Copilot ran through editor-based setups, Cline ran as a VS Code extension, Claude Code ran in the terminal, Codex worked in its cloud environment, and Emergent ran in the browser.

One result needs a caveat up front. Given the same prompt as the other tools, Copilot returned a single static HTML file with no server or database behind it. It was a clickable prototype rather than the client-server app the brief called for, so I kept it in the comparison but judged its scope separately from the other five builds.

Why Look for Windsurf Alternatives?

Devin Desktop still includes the Windsurf editor, but the Agent Command Center is now the primary view. It puts local and cloud agents at the center of the experience. You may prefer another tool if you mainly want AI help inside an editor or terminal without managing agents from a separate dashboard. 

Devin’s Pro plan and full seats on the Teams plan come with daily and weekly usage quotas. Once you reach those limits, further work draws from prepaid on-demand credits. 

How quickly you use them depends on the number and complexity of Devin’s actions, as well as factors such as the size of the codebase and the length of the session. A fixed monthly allowance may be easier to budget when your workload changes from week to week.

Which Windsurf Alternative Should You Choose?

• Choose Cursor if: You want a dedicated AI editor with codebase-wide indexing and a workflow that stays close to VS Code.
• Choose GitHub Copilot if: You want AI across GitHub and the development tools you already use, including VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains, Eclipse, Xcode, and Neovim.
• Choose OpenAI Codex if: You want a single coding agent to understand codebases, make changes, and handle delegated tasks across local and cloud workflows.
• Choose Cline if: You want to choose the model and decide which file edits, commands, and browser actions need your approval.
• Choose Claude Code if: You prefer working from the terminal and want an agent that can read files, edit code, and run commands from the same session.
• Choose Emergent if: You want to build, test, and publish a new app through prompts without setting up the screens, logic, and hosting separately.
• Stick with Devin Desktop if: You want an Agent Command Center for managing local and cloud agents while keeping an IDE available when you need to step into the code.

6 Best Windsurf Alternatives: At a Glance

The 6 Best Windsurf Alternatives

The six best Windsurf alternatives are Cursor for an AI-first editor, GitHub Copilot for GitHub-based workflows, OpenAI Codex for local and cloud coding tasks, Cline for model choice, Claude Code for terminal-first work, and Emergent for building and publishing apps through prompts.

The right choice depends on where you want the work to happen. The sections below explain what each tool is designed to do, then show how it handled the Northwind Client Hub brief, where it fell short, and what it costs.

Cursor: Best for a Standalone AI Editor

Cursor is a standalone AI code editor built on the VS Code codebase. It indexes a project when you open it, giving its AI context from across the codebase rather than only the file on screen. Its Agent can explore the project, edit several files, run commands, and fix errors from the same workspace.

Together, those features make Cursor a close match for the editor-led experience many Windsurf users originally chose. You still have the project files, terminal, and code editor in front of you while the agent works.

Cursor finished the Northwind Client Hub build in about 20 minutes using Grok 4.5 High. It recovered from an early setup issue, kept the Overdue and At Risk project states separate, and followed the nautical design direction in the brief.

The messaging flow had one important bug. The person who sent a message received the new-message alert intended for the other person, and the same error appeared on both the client and staff sides.

The app stayed local to the machine that built it. I could open and test it right away, but getting it in front of a client would have meant moving the project to a hosting provider first.

Key Features

• Codebase indexing: Cursor builds a searchable index when you open a project, helping the AI find relevant code across the repository.
• Agent mode: The agent can search the codebase, edit multiple files, run terminal commands, and work through errors.
• Design Mode: You can click an element, draw over the page, or describe a change by voice while Cursor passes the visual context to the agent.
• VS Code migration: Extensions, themes, settings, and keyboard shortcuts can move across in one import.

Pros

• Indexes the full project, so its AI can find relevant code beyond the file currently open
• Edits multiple files, runs commands, and fixes errors from the same workspace
• Followed the nautical design direction and handled the Overdue and At Risk rules correctly in the Northwind build
• Offers a free Hobby plan with limited Agent requests and Tab completions

Cons

• Sent new-message alerts to the sender instead of the intended recipient in the Northwind build
• Produced an app that ran only on the local machine and required separate hosting before it could be shared
• Longer tasks and more expensive models use the included allowance faster
• Still requires you to inspect the code, test permissions, and fix errors when the generated result behaves incorrectly

Best For

• Developers who want the editor and coding agent in one workspace
• VS Code users who want to keep their extensions, settings, and keybindings
• Projects that need codebase-wide context or changes across several files
• Teams that need centralized billing, usage analytics, and team-wide privacy controls

Pricing

• Hobby: Free with limited Agent requests and Tab completions
• Pro: $20 monthly or $16 monthly with annual billing, adding frontier models, cloud agents, MCPs, skills, and hooks
• Pro+: $60 monthly or $48 monthly with annual billing, with everything in Pro and three times the Pro Agent limits
• Ultra: $200 monthly or $160 monthly with annual billing, with everything in Pro, 20 times the Pro Agent limits, and priority access to new features
• Teams Standard: $40 per person monthly or $32 with annual billing, adding team billing, usage analytics, Privacy Mode, and SSO
• Teams Premium: $120 per person monthly or $96 with annual billing, with five times the Standard usage
• Enterprise: Custom pricing, with pooled usage, SCIM, access controls, audit logs, and priority support

Standard and Premium seats can be mixed within the same team.

GitHub Copilot: Best for Teams in Github

GitHub Copilot is the best Windsurf alternative when you already manage repositories, pull requests, and code reviews through GitHub. It brings AI assistance into GitHub.com and several supported editors, while Business and Enterprise plans add central policies for managing how your organization uses it.

You can also use Copilot in VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains, Eclipse, Xcode, and Neovim, although the available features differ by editor. You can keep your current development setup instead of moving the entire project into a separate AI editor.

Copilot completed the Northwind Client Hub build in six minutes, faster than the other tools in the test. It chose a much smaller technical scope than the prompt, so the result was a single static HTML file with no server, database, or genuine authentication.

The smaller deliverable explains much of the difference in speed. Copilot produced a clickable prototype rather than the client-server app the brief called for, so its six-minute result is not directly comparable with the fuller project structures created elsewhere.

Within that smaller scope, the Overdue and At Risk rules worked correctly. Each status showed a simulated email notification, and adding a project from the admin view worked as expected.

The account permissions were much weaker. A client could see every company in the Clients table, including its status and monthly retainer. Project pages also exposed the Budget and Assigned To fields, while an internal notification appeared inside a client account.

Messaging failed in both directions, and the finished file also ran locally rather than at a link another person could open.

Key Features

• Multi-editor support: Code completions work across VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains, Eclipse, Xcode, and Neovim, while chat and agent support vary by editor
• Copilot code review: Copilot can review selected code or changes in a pull request and suggest possible fixes
• GitHub AI Credits: One AI credit equals $0.01, with each plan including a monthly allowance for model-based features
• Organization controls: Business and Enterprise plans let owners manage access, models, features, and policy settings

Pros

• Works across GitHub.com and several editors, so you can keep your current development setup
• Adds AI assistance to pull requests and code reviews inside the GitHub workflow
• Keeps Business and Enterprise customer data out of AI model training
• Handled the Overdue and At Risk rules correctly in the Northwind build
• Starts at $10 per month for an individual paid plan

Cons

• Produced a static HTML prototype with no server, database, or genuine authentication
• Exposed other clients’ information, project budgets, staff assignments, and an internal notification
• Failed to send messages in either direction and showed no error
• Individual account interactions may be used for model training unless you disable the setting
• Agent-heavy work can consume the included AI Credits quickly because usage depends on the model and number of tokens used

Best For

• GitHub-based teams managing repositories and pull requests
• People who want Copilot inside their current editor
• Organizations that need central controls over access, models, and policies
• Businesses that need customer data excluded from model training

Pricing

GitHub currently lists monthly pricing only.

• Free: $0 with 2,000 completions per month
• Pro: $10 per person monthly with unlimited completions, code review, and $15 in AI Credits
• Pro+: $39 per person monthly with premium models and $70 in AI Credits
• Max: $100 per person monthly with priority model access and $200 in AI Credits
• Business: $19 per person monthly with pooled credits and organization controls
• Enterprise: $39 per person monthly with 3,900 pooled AI Credits per user, priority access to new models and features, and enterprise controls

Copilot now uses GitHub AI Credits to measure model-based usage. Chat, agent tasks, and other model interactions consume credits based on the model and number of tokens used, while code completions and next-edit suggestions remain unlimited on paid plans.

Emergent: Best for Prompt-to-App Building

Emergent builds complete applications through conversation, from the screens a user sees to the logic and data behind them, plus testing and getting the app online, all in one place. It suits Windsurf users who’d rather vibe code a new product and refine it with prompts than spend most of their time editing an existing repository.

The Northwind Client Hub build came together quickly and covered the full brief.

Here’s the short test snapshot:

• First working preview: About 13 minutes in one build turn.
• Follow-up prompts: Five, covering one logic fix and additional features.
• Core requirements: Access controls, CRUD, messaging, notifications, and project-status rules all worked.
• Errors: No backend, dependency, or setup errors. One later messaging regression was caught and fixed in one edit.
• Sharing: The app was ready to share after the first build.

The main advantage was having the build and revision process in the same place. I could inspect each role, test the app’s behavior, report a problem, and request the next feature without switching between a code editor, a backend service, and a hosting platform.

Publishing also stayed inside Emergent. Apps can use a live Emergent deployment or a connected custom domain when they’re ready to share.

For mobile projects, Emergent’s Mobile Agent uses Expo and React Native to build for iOS and Android. Store publishing still goes through Apple’s App Review process and Google Play’s review requirements.

Emergent also supports payments, databases, communication tools, and AI services. Its MCP Connector lets you start or manage a project from a compatible assistant such as Claude or ChatGPT.

Key Features

• Prompt-based building: Describe the app you want, then request changes in the same conversation.
• Built-in publishing: Publish the app to a public link and connect a custom domain.
• Code access through GitHub: Push the project to GitHub so a developer can review or continue working on the code.
• Stripe payments: Add one-time payments or recurring subscriptions.

Pros

• Keeps the screens, logic, data, and hosting in one workflow
• Gives non-technical builders a visual app they can test and refine
• Supports both web and mobile app projects
• Provides a route to GitHub for teams that later want more control over the code

Cons

• The test used intentionally permissive authentication, which would need replacing before the app handled client data
• More advanced features still required several rounds of prompting and testing
• It isn’t the natural fit for developers primarily maintaining a large existing codebase

Best For

• Founders and non-technical builders creating a new app from a description
• Teams that want building, testing, and publishing handled in one workspace
• Projects where launching a usable first version matters more than editing every file manually

Pricing

Emergent’s paid plans start at $20 monthly. Emergent uses credit-based plans, so compare the current plans and included credits before choosing a tier.

OpenAI Codex: Best for Local and Cloud Coding

OpenAI Codex lets you work on local code or delegate longer tasks to the cloud. It is available through the Codex app, CLI, IDE extension, and cloud, so you are not limited to one editor or workflow.

Cloud tasks run in isolated environments, where Codex can edit files, run commands, and test its changes. You can then review the results, continue locally, or open a pull request.

Codex completed the Northwind Client Hub in 19 minutes. Its first pass followed the maritime brief closely, including maritime-themed taglines and a compass-and-coordinates motif.

Messaging worked in both directions, with delivery confirmation and no messages appearing under the wrong client account during the test.

The admin flows were less reliable. There was no working way to add a client, the new-project form appeared to save but created nothing, and project status changes did not reach the client view.

Client accounts could also see the Budget and Assigned To fields. An internal notification about requesting a deadline extension appeared while a client account was open.

‍

Codex generated a link, but it wasn’t publicly accessible. Opening it required signing in to the ChatGPT account used to create the build, so I couldn’t send the link to a client and let them view the app independently.

Key Features

• Local and cloud workflows: Codex can run in its desktop app, CLI, or IDE extension, or run tasks in an isolated cloud environment.
• Reviewable cloud tasks: Cloud results include code changes, command logs, and test output before you accept them.
• GitHub code review: Codex can automatically review pull requests and suggest changes within GitHub.

Pros

• Works across local and cloud coding environments
• Lets you review logs, tests, and code changes before accepting cloud work
• Followed the Northwind design brief closely
• Handled client and agency messaging correctly in both directions
• Comes with eligible ChatGPT subscriptions

Cons

• Failed to create new clients or projects in the Northwind build
• Did not pass admin status changes through to the client view
• Exposed project budgets, staff assignments, and an internal notification to clients
• Produced a link that required the builder’s ChatGPT sign-in
• Extra usage costs vary based on the model and token use

Best For

• Developers working across local and cloud environments
• Teams that want reviewable code changes, logs, and test results
• ChatGPT subscribers who want Codex without a separate subscription
• Refactors, test coverage, dependency updates, and other scoped tasks

Pricing

• Free: $0 with limited Codex access
• Go: $8 monthly with limited Codex access
• Plus: $20 monthly with expanded Codex usage
• Pro ($100): $100 monthly with five times the Plus usage
• Pro ($200): $200 monthly with 20 times the Plus usage
• Business: $25 per person monthly or $20 with annual billing, with workspace controls and optional credits
• Enterprise: Custom pricing with shared credits and enterprise controls

Cline: Best for Model Choice and Control

Cline is a free, open-source coding agent that runs in VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Cursor, Windsurf, and the terminal. You can use Cline’s built-in provider, connect an external API key, or run a supported model locally.

Approvals are configurable rather than required for every step. Auto Approve settings control which file edits, commands, browser actions, and MCP tools can run without confirmation.

Cline completed the Northwind Client Hub in 17 minutes using DeepSeek V4 Flash. The model has a 1 million-token context window, and Cline used 96.3K tokens during the build.

The project had a React frontend built with Vite, an Express backend, and a separate database. Clients saw only their linked projects, with no budgets or staff names exposed.

Changing the SEO Audit project’s status in the admin account updated the client view without a refresh. Adding, editing, and deleting projects worked, as did adding a new client.

The Overdue and At Risk rules also responded correctly to date changes. Editing a due date cleared the relevant flag automatically, showing that the status came from the date rather than a manually selected label.

Messaging broke in two ways. New messages increased the unread count and appeared in the sidebar preview, but the conversation still showed “No messages yet” in both directions.

The Northwind build remained on localhost, so sharing it outside the computer required a separate deployment step.

Key Features

• Model choice: Use Cline Provider, external API keys, or supported models running locally.
• Configurable approvals: Choose which edits, commands, browser actions, and MCP tools require confirmation.
• Checkpoints: Restore earlier file states without losing the task conversation.
• Open-source core: Inspect and modify the tool rather than relying on a closed editor.

Pros

• Broad choice of models and providers
• Configurable approvals instead of confirmation for every action
• Kept client projects, budgets, and staff details separated
• Completed the add, edit, and delete flows correctly
• Applied the Overdue and At Risk rules from project dates

Cons

• Cloud inference costs vary by provider and model
• Messages appeared in unread counts but not conversation threads
• Attached one message subject to the wrong client
• Produced no public or hosted link
• Centralized billing and team controls require Enterprise

Best For

• Developers who want broad model and provider choice
• Teams with existing API or cloud-model accounts
• People who want configurable approvals and checkpoints
• Projects where local code access matters more than built-in hosting

Pricing

• Open source: Free, with model usage billed separately
• ClinePass: Currently $4.99 for the first month, then $9.99 monthly, with selected open-weight models and no separate API keys
• Enterprise: Custom pricing with centralized billing, SSO, role controls, and team management

Claude Code: Best for Terminal-First Coding

Claude Code works from the terminal rather than asking you to move into a separate AI editor. It can read and edit project files, run commands, and work across a codebase, which makes it a natural Windsurf alternative for terminal-first development.

On the Northwind Client Hub brief, Claude Code finished in about 23 minutes using Sonnet 5. It handled the Overdue and At Risk rules correctly, then caught and removed duplicate setup logic it had introduced without another prompt.

The trouble started when I switched between the admin and client accounts. Both received the same notifications, which exposed staff names and email addresses in the client view. The main project logic worked, but the role separation did not.

Claude Code could build the app, but sharing it was another matter. Its attempt to push the project to GitHub hit an existing permissions issue, and the fallback Claude Artifact link still required a Claude sign-in. The client had no public preview that they could open independently.

Key Features

• Terminal workflow: Claude Code can inspect and edit project files, run commands, execute tests, and work with Git.
• IDE access: It also works through supported VS Code and JetBrains integrations.
• Permission controls: You can decide which files, commands, and tools Claude Code may use.

Pros

• Included with every paid Claude plan
• Works directly with local files, commands, tests, and Git
• Caught and fixed its own duplicate setup logic
• Handled the Overdue and At Risk rules correctly
• Team and Enterprise content is not used for model training by default

Cons

• Exposed internal staff details through client notifications
• Produced a fallback link that required a Claude sign-in
• Shares its allowance with regular Claude use
• Claude Code is not included on the Free plan

Best For

• Developers who prefer working in the terminal
• Existing paid Claude subscribers
• Repository-wide edits, debugging, tests, and Git tasks
• Projects that need direct access to local files and commands

Pricing

• Free: $0, without Claude Code
• Pro: $20 monthly or $17 with annual billing, with Claude Code included
• Max 5x: $100 monthly, with everything in Pro plus five times the usage
• Max 20x: $200 monthly, with everything in Pro plus 20 times the usage
• Standard seat: $25 per seat monthly or $20 per seat monthly with annual billing, including Claude Code and team controls
• Premium Seat: $125 per seat monthly or $100 per seat monthly with annual billing, including five times the usage of a Standard seat 
• Enterprise: $20 per seat, plus usage at API rates, with additional security, administration, and spend controls

How to Evaluate Windsurf Alternatives

The best Windsurf alternative depends on where you want to work, how much control you need, and what happens after the tool writes the code.

Where Do You Want to Work?

Some tools sit inside a coding environment and help you edit an existing project. Others use a prompt-to-app workflow that takes on more of the app-building and publishing process.

‍

The choices are:

• Dedicated AI editor: Cursor
• Your current IDE and GitHub workflow: GitHub Copilot
• Terminal or editor extension: Claude Code and Cline
• Local and cloud task delegation: OpenAI Codex
• Prompt-based building and publishing: Emergent

How Much Model Choice Do You Need?

The best AI coding assistants differ in how much model choice they provide, which can affect output quality, cost, and whether a tool fits the rest of your company’s AI setup. 

Some tools stay within one provider’s models, while others, like Cline, let you switch.

The main options are:

• Several model providers: Cursor, GitHub Copilot, and Cline
• Anthropic models: Claude Code
• OpenAI models: Codex
• App-first workflow rather than model selection: Emergent

How Do You Want to Pay?

The monthly plan price does not always show the full cost. Check whether the plan includes a usage allowance, charges through a model provider, or uses credits across the build.

The six tools can be grouped into:

• Plan with included AI usage: Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and Codex
• ClinePass, external provider, or local model: Cline
• Credits used across the app-building process: Emergent

How Closely Do You Want to Follow the Work?

Some Windsurf alternatives work beside you while you inspect each code change. Others let you hand off a task or focus more on the app than the underlying code. Choose based on the level of involvement you want.

You might want to:

• Review code changes as they happen: Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and Cline
• Delegate local or cloud coding tasks: Codex
• Describe the app, review the result, and request changes through prompts: Emergent

Beyond Editing Code Faster

The Windsurf alternatives in this guide give you different ways to work with code. Some keep you inside an editor, some work through the terminal, and others let you hand off tasks to a cloud agent. 

But more coding help only gets you so far when what you need is an app people can use. You still have to connect the pieces, find somewhere to host it, and work out how to put it in front of customers. A mobile app adds the store submission process as well. 

Emergent gives you a more direct route. You describe the app you need, review it in a live preview, and request changes in the same conversation. You can publish the web app, connect a custom domain, add Stripe payments, and use its mobile app workflow when you want to publish beyond the web.

Start with the problem you want to solve and a clear picture of who the app is for. Emergent handles the files, hosting, and setup, giving you one place to build, shape, and put the app in front of users.

Stop piecing the setup together and start building the product you came here to make.

Build on Emergent.