# Cursor vs Claude Code: put your subscriptions to work

> Choose the right agent, understand the bill, and see how beafk puts your own AI subscriptions to work together while you step away from the keyboard.

Cursor earns its place when you want an editor with AI close to the code.
Claude Code earns its place when you want Anthropic's agent using your Claude
plan. If you want your own agents working together on your machine, with a
phone in your pocket instead of a laptop on your knees, that is where beafk
comes in.

Picture the task you keep postponing. The refactor that needs a quiet afternoon.
The tests you meant to write. You finally hand it to an agent, then spend your
break watching it work.

You delegated the typing. You still have the shift.

Choosing between Cursor and Claude Code starts with how you like to build.
Getting that break back takes another decision: where the work runs, and how
you stay in reach when it needs you.

## Cursor has grown beyond the editor

Cursor's [CLI](https://cursor.com/cli) runs agents in a terminal and supports
headless jobs for scripts and automation. Claude Code has
[terminal, editor, desktop and browser interfaces](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview).
Both can take a task through edits and commands; neither requires you to accept
suggestions one line at a time.

Keep Cursor if its editing experience helps you think. Seeing the surrounding
code, changing a line yourself and taking the next completion can be exactly
the right rhythm. You do not need to turn every small edit into a briefing.

For a larger job, try a different rhythm: describe the finished result, give the
agent a way to check it, and review what comes back. That is the point where
waiting beside the editor starts to feel expensive.

## A model picker buys you convenience

Cursor brings models from several labs into one product. You can change which
model you use without setting up another agent. Its
[current catalogue](https://cursor.com/docs/models-and-pricing) is the place to
check availability; a list frozen into a blog post ages faster than your code.

That convenience has a clear use. If you want to try another lab's model on a
stubborn problem, a picker is a short path to it.

But picking Claude inside Cursor and opening Claude Code are different
purchases. The model name tells you which intelligence you chose. It does not
tell you whose allowance the task will spend.

**Check the account behind the model before you start the long job.**

## The bill follows the account, not the model name

At the time of writing, Cursor's individual Pro, Pro Plus and Ultra plans cost
$20, $60 and $200 per month. Third-party models draw from an included pool at
API rates; extra on-demand usage costs more. Cursor also has a separate pool
for its own models. Those details matter more than the headline subscription
price. [Cursor's pricing](https://cursor.com/docs/models-and-pricing).

Claude Pro costs $20 when billed monthly and includes Claude Code; Max starts
at $100 per month. Usage limits apply.
[Claude's plans](https://claude.com/pricing).

On an eligible Claude subscription, included Claude Code usage spends your
plan's allowance. API access and optional usage credits have their own costs.
A subscription buys room to work within limits, so check those limits against
the jobs you actually run.
[How Claude Code tracks usage](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/costs).

Try one representative task before upgrading anything. Give it a clear finish
line, run it, and inspect the allowance it used. A plan that covers your real
work is worth more than a comparison built around somebody else's workload.

## Your Claude subscription already has a job

If you pay for Claude Max, choosing Claude in Cursor does not spend that Max
allowance. You are using Cursor's billing path. Open Claude Code with your
Claude account and the eligible work goes against the plan you already bought.

You can keep both. Cursor can remain the editor you enjoy, while Claude Code
handles work on your Claude account. Paying for a useful editor is easy to
justify; leaving another paid allowance idle by accident is harder.

beafk builds around that direct relationship. It runs the published agent CLI
on your machine, signed in as you. Anthropic's
[documentation for products running Claude Code](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/legal-and-compliance)
describes this distinction explicitly: the binary stays unmodified, users
bring their own credentials, and usage is billed directly to them.

Your provider's limits still apply. beafk adds no token markup and gives you a
way to put the accounts you already have to work from one place.

## The agent around the model matters

A coding agent does more than ask a model for text. It chooses what to read,
turns decisions into file edits, runs checks and carries the useful context
into the next step. That surrounding software is often called the harness.

Two products offering the same model can behave differently because those
steps differ. Judge the complete agent on a real repository: did it find the
relevant code, make a focused change and show evidence that it works?

Claude Code gives you Anthropic's implementation of that loop. Cursor gives
you Cursor's. A model name alone cannot settle which will do your task better.

With beafk, the CLI you chose remains the one doing the work. Its tools and
account stay with it. beafk supplies the place to manage the job and bring other
agents into it. [Which agents beafk runs](/docs/which-agents-beafk-runs).

## beafk turns your subscriptions into a crew you can leave working

You may already pay for more than one capable agent. Usually, one gets the
whole afternoon's work because its terminal happens to be open.

In beafk, you can give a job to a lead agent and let it hand independent pieces
to other signed-in CLIs. The answers return to the same thread. A builder can
implement a change while another agent investigates a separate part of the
problem; once the diff is ready, a different agent can review it.
[How a crew works](/docs/what-a-crew-is).

You stop carrying answers between tabs. Each piece uses the account of the
agent running it, and you can open its contribution to see what happened.
More agents use more allowance; put them on work that benefits from being split.
One agent is enough to start.

Then there is the part you feel in your day.

Send the task from your phone. Put it away while the agents work. When you
check back, read the diff or screenshot, answer the question holding things up,
and send the job on. Closing the browser leaves the session running on your
machine. [What beafk is](/docs/what-is-beafk).

For that machine to keep working, it needs to stay awake and online. Start on
your Mac; use an always-on machine when you want your laptop shut. Your code
and agent sessions live there, and you keep access to the machine independently
of beafk.

beafk is free on your own Mac. Remote access has a separate beafk plan, and you
still pay for your AI accounts and any server you rent. The value is having
your existing tools working together somewhere you can reach without sitting
beside them. [What it costs](/docs/what-it-costs).

[Get beafk for Mac](/download/mac), connect an agent you already use, and hand
it one task with a finish line you can verify. Keep Cursor open for the edits
you want to make yourself.

The next break can be yours.

---

beafk blog · https://beafk.app/blog/cursor-vs-claude-code
Every article: https://beafk.app/blog