Comparison
Factory Droid vs Cursor
September 24, 2026 - 5 minute read
Factory is an autonomous software engineering platform. Its agents, Droids, carry out engineering tasks, while Factory's Software Factory connects those agents across the development lifecycle. That product, currently in Private Preview, brings incoming issues, implementation, code review, QA, documentation, and incident response into a coordinated system. Engineers set its goals and decide where human approval is required.
Cursor combines its AI code editor with agents for terminal and cloud work. It joined SpaceX in August 2026, completing an acquisition that followed the companies' model-training partnership. The Factory vs Cursor decision now extends from an engineer's daily workspace to how a team delegates and reviews ongoing work. Editor experience still matters, alongside the integrations, execution environments, and controls needed to put those agents into regular use.
Factory vs Cursor in everyday development
For everyday work, start with the environment engineers already use. As of October 2, 2026, Cursor's JetBrains integration runs through the Agent Client Protocol (ACP), so adopting its agent does not always require adopting its editor.
Factory's IDE integrations let Droid work from VS Code-family editors, JetBrains, and Zed. A team can evaluate Droid inside Cursor without replacing the editor. In VS Code-family editors, the integration shares the active file, selections, open files, and diagnostics. JetBrains runs Droid in its AI Chat panel, but does not automatically supply the same open-file and diagnostic context.
Those details matter when a request begins with “fix this error.” An engineer may be looking at an unsaved change or a diagnostic that the agent has not received. Confirm the context available in the chosen integration, or reference the file and reproduce the failure through the repository's tools.
For an interactive task, the useful comparison includes how easily the engineer can inspect a diff, correct the approach, and continue working. A familiar editor can reduce switching costs, but it does not establish which agent will produce the better patch.
Running tasks from scripts and remote machines
Both products support headless execution, meaning a script can start a task without an interactive chat. Cursor's headless CLI uses print mode for analysis, generation, and refactoring. It proposes changes without applying them unless file modification is explicitly enabled. Droid Exec also starts read-only, with autonomy levels that opt into edits and other operations. Both offer structured output for automation.
A job that prepares a dependency update needs permission to change files and run validation. It should stop when a required check fails, even if the agent produces a confident summary. Run the repository's checks as explicit pipeline steps and propagate their exit status. Permission to prepare a branch does not grant permission to merge or deploy it.
For delegated application work, Cursor's cloud agents can use a desktop and browser, start a development server, and produce screenshots or videos of the result. An engineer can take control of the remote desktop to inspect the application directly.
Factory offers Droid Computers, persistent machines that retain installed packages, files, and services across sessions. Factory can manage the machine, or the team can register one it already operates. That retained setup can avoid repeated installation, while also making stale files and leftover processes part of the team's operating responsibility.
Compare remote runs with the dependencies and test services they will actually need. A successful local run says little about a remote environment that cannot reach the package registry or start the database.
Factory vs Cursor inside a private network
Private infrastructure can mean keeping command execution on company machines, or keeping the entire workflow disconnected from the public internet. Those are different requirements.
Cursor's self-hosted team pools let Enterprise teams run workers on infrastructure they manage. The workers execute terminal commands, file edits, and browser actions. Cursor's cloud still runs the agent loop, including planning and model inference, over an outbound HTTPS connection. File chunks read by the model leave the network, as do uploaded artifacts such as screenshots and videos.
That arrangement can meet a requirement to execute builds near internal services. It does not meet a requirement for no outbound runtime connectivity. Hosting a worker yourself does not bring Cursor's cloud agent loop into your network.
Factory's air-gapped deployment addresses that stricter requirement with an enterprise airgap build, internal model endpoints, and no Factory cloud dependency at runtime. Airgap Mode disables cloud session sync, update checks, crash reporting, and Factory telemetry. Factory-managed models and Factory Router are unavailable in this mode.
This is a specific reason to choose Factory when outbound connectivity is prohibited. It also leaves the customer responsible for network isolation, model serving, dependencies, offline updates, and recovery. Airgap Mode skips Factory-bound work, while the customer's firewall and sandbox enforce the boundary. Registering a normal remote machine with either product should not be mistaken for deploying an isolated system.
Privacy commitments and enforced controls
Cursor's enterprise offering includes organization-wide Privacy Mode, enforced SSO, and SCIM provisioning. With Privacy Mode enabled, code is not used for training. Cursor also states that it maintains zero-data-retention agreements with model providers. Administrators can control model access, MCP servers, and agent settings.
No-training commitments, provider retention, and network isolation answer different questions. Provider zero retention does not mean there are no saved sessions, operational logs, or artifacts elsewhere in the workflow. Review each of those stores under the configuration and contract the team will use.
Factory's privacy documentation ties the data boundary to the deployment, model endpoints, and gateways. Reading code on a local machine does not mean model inference is local. A custom gateway may forward prompts to another provider, and optional message-content telemetry creates another copy to govern. Those systems need their own retention and access policies.
Factory's Enterprise Controls distinguish enforced limits from user preferences. Organization model allowlists and maximum autonomy levels constrain lower-level choices. A system-managed settings file can apply policy before a user signs in, including on restricted-network and air-gapped machines.
For either product, verify a required restriction from an ordinary user's account and a newly provisioned machine. A model that appears blocked in an administrator's dashboard should also be unavailable in the actual workflow. Treat an enforced setting and a suggested default as different controls.
Repository instructions and the resulting patch
Both agents can use instructions kept with the repository. Cursor supports project, team, and user rules, plus root and nested AGENTS.md files. Factory's AGENTS.md support includes project guidance, nested discovery, and personal defaults. Shared filenames do not guarantee identical discovery or precedence, and prose instructions do not replace access controls.
Use a real repository rule with a visible result. For a generated client, require regeneration from the schema rather than direct edits to generated files. Give both agents the same starting revision, task description, acceptance tests, and access boundary in separate worktrees. Record the model, product version, and relevant settings for each run. Inspect the diff and command log to see whether each followed the applicable package instructions.
Keep the comparison small enough to review carefully. A reproducible bug and a maintenance change can reveal missing tests, unnecessary edits, and points where a person has to intervene. Record setup failures and unsuccessful attempts alongside completed work. Capture usage charges, execution costs, and reviewer time rather than treating subscription price as cost per successful task.
Cursor may fit a team that wants its editor and agent together or its documented cloud desktop workflow. Droid may fit a team adopting an agent across existing tools, with Factory's airgap build available for a stricter network requirement. Neither preference proves a speed, quality, or cost advantage. Choose the configuration that meets the team's constraints, then judge the patch, the checks, and the work still left for the reviewer. Keep merge and release approval with the people responsible for them.
Frequently asked questions
What is Factory?
Factory is an autonomous software engineering platform. Its agents, Droids, carry out engineering tasks, and its Software Factory, currently in Private Preview, connects them across issues, implementation, code review, QA, documentation, and incident response.
Can Droid run inside other editors?
Yes. Factory IDE integrations let Droid work from VS Code-family editors, JetBrains, and Zed, so a team can evaluate Droid without replacing its editor.
What are Droid Computers?
Droid Computers are persistent machines that retain installed packages, files, and services across sessions. Factory can manage the machine, or a team can register one it already operates.
Further reading
Talk with Factory
Discuss your team’s software development, privacy, or deployment requirements.
Contact us
