Overview
Cursor and Claude Code represent two different approaches to AI-assisted development. Cursor is an AI-powered IDE with inline completions and chat. Claude Code is an agentic CLI that reads your codebase and makes multi-file changes autonomously. Both can produce excellent code, but their security characteristics differ.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Cursor | Claude Code |
|---|---|---|
| Interface | IDE (VS Code fork) | CLI agent |
| Code generation | Inline + chat | Agentic, multi-file |
| Context awareness | Current file + references | Full codebase |
| Security prompting | .cursorrules | CLAUDE.md |
| Tool execution | Limited terminal | Full shell access |
| Code review | Manual diff review | Git diff review |
| Best for | Interactive coding | Large-scale changes |
Security Analysis
Cursor security strengths: Inline suggestions let developers review each completion before accepting. The .cursorrules file can enforce security patterns. Multiple model options allow choosing the most security-conscious model.
Claude Code security strengths: Full codebase awareness means more consistent security patterns across files. CLAUDE.md establishes project-wide security requirements. Anthropic’s Constitutional AI training makes Claude more likely to flag security concerns proactively.
Common weaknesses: Both can generate hardcoded secrets, miss server-side validation, and produce insecure dependency choices. Neither tool guarantees secure code output.
Verdict
Claude Code generally produces more security-conscious code due to its full codebase awareness and Anthropic’s safety training. Cursor offers more granular control with line-by-line review. For security-critical projects, Claude Code’s holistic view reduces inconsistent security patterns. Use either with automated security scanning.