Factory Droid vs Cursor

Cursor is a code editor with a built-in coding agent. Factory's Droid is a coding agent you can use from an existing editor, including Cursor. You can compare the agents without replacing the editor your team already uses.

The choice gets broader when a task needs to run outside that editor session. As of October 1, 2026, Cursor documents a CLI, headless execution for scripts, and cloud agents. Factory provides Droid Exec for scripted tasks and remote execution environments. Compare those workflows separately from local editing, because their permissions and data handling depend on where the work runs.

Compare Factory and Cursor where engineers work

Factory's IDE integrations let Droid run inside an existing editor. In VS Code-family editors, including Cursor, the integration can share active-file context, selections, open files, and diagnostics. Factory also documents integrations for JetBrains and Zed, with different capabilities. The JetBrains integration does not automatically provide the same open-file and diagnostic context as the VS Code extension.

These differences affect a concrete task. If the request depends on an unsaved selection or editor diagnostics, confirm that the chosen integration supplies them. Otherwise, reference the file and reproduce the diagnostic through the repository's tools.

Cursor's CLI supports interactive terminal work and non-interactive print mode. Its headless guide explicitly covers automation and CI/CD. Test terminal access and scripting in both products when evaluating an automated workflow.

For Factory, Droid Exec provides a non-interactive task runner with structured output options and explicit autonomy controls. The default execution mode is read-only. A CI job that prepares a patch needs an intentional mutation setting and must propagate a failed validation command to its result.

Compare enterprise deployment and data boundaries

Cursor's cloud-agent capabilities include desktop and browser control. Agents can start a development server and interact with the software they build.

For remote execution, verify that the environment can reproduce your dependency installation and provide the required services and test data. Record which credentials are available and what they can reach. Read Cursor's cloud security and network documentation for the selected configuration instead of assuming that local and cloud sessions have the same boundary.

Cursor also documents self-hosted team pools. Workers execute tool calls on infrastructure the team manages, while the agent loop remains in Cursor's cloud. Separate the location of command execution from the location of the agent loop when checking a private-network requirement.

Factory's deployment documentation describes cloud-managed, hybrid, and fully air-gapped patterns. In the air-gapped pattern, Droid, model endpoints, and telemetry collectors run inside an isolated network, with no Factory cloud dependency at runtime. Binaries and configuration arrive through offline processes.

That architecture gives Factory a concrete advantage when the requirement is no outbound runtime connectivity, compared with Cursor's documented self-hosted pools that retain a cloud agent loop. It does not mean every Factory deployment is air-gapped. Confirm the selected deployment, available models, and operating responsibilities with your infrastructure team.

Check privacy commitments and administrative controls

Cursor's enterprise page states that code is not used for training when Privacy Mode is enabled organization-wide, and that Cursor maintains zero-data-retention agreements with model providers. It also documents enforced SSO and SCIM provisioning. These are meaningful enterprise controls that a comparison should acknowledge.

Training use, provider retention, and network isolation address different requirements. A no-training commitment does not establish that prompts stay inside your network. Review which systems process prompts, code context, session records, and telemetry, along with their retention terms.

Factory's privacy documentation ties the data boundary to the deployment, model endpoints, and gateways you configure. Custom gateways and self-hosted models bring their own privacy responsibilities. Validate those systems and their contracts rather than treating a Factory installation as a blanket zero-retention guarantee.

For centrally managed fleets, 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.

A disallowed model selection or a user setting above the autonomy limit should fail under the effective policy. Include a newly provisioned machine in that check so inherited settings are tested as well as an administrator's configured workstation.

Check project instructions with a real change

Cursor's rules documentation supports project, team, and user rules, alongside AGENTS.md in the root and subdirectories. Factory's AGENTS.md documentation describes project guidance, nested discovery, and personal defaults.

Shared filenames do not establish identical discovery or precedence behavior. Test a root instruction and a narrower package instruction in the directories your team actually uses. Ask each agent to identify the applicable rules before editing, then inspect whether the result follows them.

Choose a rule with a visible outcome. For example, a generated client must be regenerated from its schema rather than edited by hand. Another rule could require the focused package test before the full repository gate. Check the diff and command log, not just the agent's statement that it followed the instructions.

Compare accepted work, including the review

Give both products the same repository revision, task description, acceptance tests, and access boundary. Start from separate clean worktrees or disposable environments so one run cannot inherit the other's edits. Record the selected model, product version, and relevant settings.

A practical comparison can use a reproducible bug, a small feature, and a maintenance change drawn from the team's own backlog. Record whether each result passes the acceptance checks, how much human correction it needs, and how long review takes. Keep setup failures visible because they are part of the workflow a team would have to operate.

Do not turn subscription price into a claimed cost per successful task. Capture the usage charges, execution costs, and reviewer time that the pilot actually incurs. Include unsuccessful attempts. Product documentation alone cannot establish a performance or cost winner.

Choose based on the environment the team will use. Editor context matters for interactive work. Remote desktop and browser behavior matter for delegated application changes. A no-egress requirement calls for the actual isolated deployment, including its model and dependency setup. The comparison should end with the reviewed patch and remaining defects for each configuration, without extending a local bug-fix result into a claim about unattended production work.

Further reading

• Factory and Claude Code: compare completed work
• Coding agent task specifications that work
• Cursor cloud agents