Deva vs Cursor
Both Deva and Cursor are AI-first code editors built on VS Code. They target overlapping audiences but optimize for different constraints: Cursor focuses on the best possible AI coding experience with cloud-based model routing, while Deva adds security scanning, compliance mapping, and on-device operation for developers in regulated industries.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Deva IDE | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation | Full fork of VS Code OSS. | Full fork of VS Code OSS. |
| AI model routing | Multi-model: Claude, GPT, Gemini via authenticated proxy. Plus local open-source models (Llama 3.3, Mistral, DeepSeek, Qwen) and the Deva Coder model. | Multi-model: Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok. Routes through Cursor's infrastructure. |
| Local model support | Yes. Deva Coder runs locally via Ollama. Open-source models can run on-device for air-gapped use. | Limited. Cursor relies on cloud inference. |
| Code egress | Zero by default. Cloud model calls are opt-in. | Code context is sent to Cursor's infrastructure for model routing. Privacy Mode reduces but does not eliminate egress. |
| Security scanning | Built in. 970+ CWE rules. AST and taint tracking. 17 compliance frameworks. | Not a primary feature. Available via VS Code extensions but not first-party. |
| Compliance support (HIPAA, CMMC, FedRAMP) | First-party. Findings map to specific compliance control clauses. | Not supported as a product feature. |
| Agentic coding mode | Three modes (Ask, Edit, Agent) with multi-step orchestration via DFCM. | Composer mode for multi-step edits and Cursor Agent for autonomous tasks. Highly polished. |
| Tab completion ergonomics | Standard VS Code OSS inline completion plus model-routed suggestions. | Custom-built tab completion ranked among the most-praised features in the category. |
| Chat and codebase Q&A | AI chat with codebase context, voice activation, and a particle-visualized assistant interface. | Excellent codebase Q&A with deep semantic indexing. |
| Magic Wand visual editor | Click any UI element in a browser preview and describe a change in plain English. AI maps to source and edits. | Not available. |
| Pricing (individual) | Free during beta. Paid tiers planned. | Free tier with limits. Pro is $20/month. Business is $40/user/month. |
Where Deva is strong
- Designed for environments where source code cannot leave the boundary.
- Security scanning, compliance mapping, and AI in a single tool.
- True local-model option (Deva Coder) for air-gapped operation.
- Magic Wand visual editor adds a UI-design layer that no other AI IDE offers.
- Compliance-aware fix generation is the differentiator for regulated teams.
Where Cursor is strong
- Best-in-class tab completion ergonomics.
- Polished composer and agent mode.
- Larger community of users and patterns to learn from.
- Strong codebase indexing for cross-file Q&A.
- Established product with hundreds of thousands of paying users.
Which one fits your use case
You work in healthcare, finance, defense, or any controlled environment.
Cursor's architecture sends code context to its cloud. Deva keeps everything local by default and offers full air-gapped operation.
You want security scanning and compliance mapping as first-party features.
Cursor does not ship a scanner or compliance engine. Deva does both.
You build greenfield consumer products and want the most polished AI coding experience.
Cursor's tab completion, composer, and agent mode are highly refined for general-purpose development.
You want the most-tested agentic coding experience available right now.
Cursor Agent and Composer have shipped to a large user base for over a year. Deva's agent mode is newer.
Verdict
For developers in regulated, controlled, or compliance-sensitive environments, Deva is purpose-built. For general-purpose AI coding without compliance constraints, Cursor is currently the more polished general-purpose experience. The two tools are not mutually exclusive: a developer can use Cursor for personal projects and Deva for work projects bound by compliance.