Best European Alternatives to Cursor
Looking for a European alternative to Cursor? An AI editor with repository-wide context reads everything — credentials in config files, unreleased product logic, customer data in fixtures — and Cursor is a US company processing all of it.
These European and self-hostable assistants keep proprietary source inside EU jurisdiction, or inside your own network entirely, while still giving you completion, refactoring and agentic editing.
How we rank these tools — 4-step process
-
1
European ownership, verified
The company is headquartered and incorporated in the EU, EEA or Switzerland, and processes customer data in Europe. A US parent company disqualifies a tool from this page regardless of where its servers are.
-
2
Category fit and hands-on review
What the tool actually does, who it suits, and where it falls short — checked against the vendor’s own documentation, changelog and pricing page rather than its marketing copy.
-
3
Compliance and pricing check
GDPR posture, hosting location and the prices quoted on this page are verified against the vendor’s public pricing before publication, and re-checked when we revisit the category.
-
4
Position on this page
Placement on this page can be paid, and that can affect which tools appear here and the order they appear in. It never buys a good review: a tool that fails the checks above is not here at any price, and payment does not change the shortcomings we write about. A vendor can ask us to correct a factual error — not to remove a criticism.
Vendors can pay for visibility on this page. It never changes what an entry says about a product, including the criticism, and we earn nothing when you click through to a vendor. Paid placement can affect which tools appear here and the order they appear in. Editorial policy
7 European Alternatives to Cursor
Mistral AI
European frontier models with Codestral for code generation
Hugging Face
Open model hub with code models you can run yourself
JetBrains AI Assistant
AI built into the IDEs your team already uses
Lovable
Prompt-to-app builder that ships full-stack projects
Refact.ai
Open-source AI agent for refactoring and completion
Continue
Open-source IDE assistant you point at any model, including EU ones
Tabby
Self-hosted coding assistant — no code leaves your servers
Key takeaways
- Cursor sells US data residency on Enterprise at about a ten per cent uplift and has no equivalent European region, which is stated in its own documentation rather than inferred.
- Privacy Mode is enforced by default only on Business and Enterprise; on individual plans each developer sets it themselves.
- Cursor is a forked editor, so the migration cost is an editor migration, not a cancelled invoice.
- Hugging Face, Continue and Tabby are not European companies, and this page says so rather than rounding them up.
- For the self-hosted options the jurisdiction question disappears because there is no provider, not because the provider is European.
Why people leave Cursor
Cursor won this market by being genuinely good. The agent edits across files without losing the thread, tab completion predicts the next edit rather than the next token, and Anysphere Inc. shipped faster than anyone else in the category for two years running. Nobody sensible leaves because the product is weak.
They leave because of where it runs. Cursor publishes one data residency programme and it is the United States: Enterprise only, enabled per team, with a ten per cent price uplift on the models that qualify. For the EU the documentation offers inference-only coverage on request and says broader European support is in development. Read that sentence twice if your organisation has a procurement rule about processing location, because it is the vendor saying the box cannot be ticked yet.
The second reason is structural. Cursor is not a plug-in that sits in your editor; it is a fork of the editor. Leaving is not cancelling a subscription, it is moving your extensions, keybindings and muscle memory somewhere else, and that cost is worth counting before you start rather than halfway through.
- The only region you can buy is the wrong one Cursor documents US data residency for Enterprise teams, covering inference, storage, cloud agents and autocomplete on eligible models, at roughly ten per cent more. The same page lists what still leaves the region: SSO, custom models, MCP servers and third-party integrations. There is no European equivalent of that programme at the time of writing — only inference-only coverage on request — so a team in Frankfurt cannot pin Cursor to Frankfurt however much it is willing to pay.
- Privacy Mode is a default only if someone bought the right plan With Privacy Mode on, Cursor states it will not train on your data and holds zero-data-retention agreements with the model providers behind it. The catch is who turns it on. On Business and Enterprise it is enforced centrally; on an individual plan it is a setting each developer has to find. If half your engineers pay for their own Pro licences, your source code policy is being set one checkbox at a time.
- Switching means switching editors Copilot and the assistants below it are extensions: you remove one and install another and your editor is unchanged. Cursor is the editor. That makes the product better integrated and it makes the exit heavier, which is why three of the seven entries here are deliberately plug-ins for VS Code and JetBrains rather than new applications.
- Usage pricing that moves Every paid Cursor tier includes an allowance of model spend and bills the overage afterwards, and the tiers themselves have been restructured repeatedly since 2025. That is defensible for a company reselling frontier inference at cost plus a margin, and it also means the line in your budget is a forecast rather than a number. A self-hosted assistant converts that forecast into a GPU you already own.
What you have to replace, not just match
Decide first which half of Cursor you are replacing, because the tools below split cleanly along that line and buying the wrong half wastes a quarter.
The first half is the interface: completion as you type, a chat pane that sees the repository, and an agent that edits several files and runs the tests. JetBrains AI Assistant, Refact.ai, Continue and Tabby all sell that half, and none of them asks you to abandon your editor to get it.
The second half is the model. Cursor is a very good wrapper around inference it buys from someone else, plus its own Composer model. If your objection is jurisdiction, the model is the part that has to move, and that is why Mistral and Hugging Face appear on a page about a code editor at all: they are where the European or self-hosted inference comes from once the wrapper has changed.
The alternatives compared
| Position | Tool | Headquarters | Pricing | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Mistral AI | Paris, France | Free tier / pay-per-use API | EU (France) |
| #2 | Hugging Face | Paris, France (and New York) | Free tier / Pro from $9 per month / Enterprise | US-incorporated despite French origins |
| #3 | JetBrains AI Assistant | Prague, Czech Republic | Free tier / AI Pro from $10 per month / AI Ultimate from $30 per month | EU (Czech Republic) |
| #4 | Lovable | Stockholm, Sweden | Free tier / Pro from $25 per month / Teams from $30 per user per month | EU (Sweden) |
| #5 | Refact.ai | Amsterdam, Netherlands | Free and open source self-hosted / Cloud from $10 per month | EU (Netherlands) |
| #6 | Continue | Distributed | Free and open source; you pay only your model provider | Project is US-incorporated; inference is wherever you point it |
| #7 | Tabby | Distributed | Free and open source; Enterprise tier for SSO and access control | Runs wherever you deploy it; maintainer is US-based |
How each alternative compares to Cursor
- Which law reaches it. EU (France). Cursor is run from the United States, so the CLOUD Act obliges the provider to hand over data on a valid order regardless of which country the servers are in.
- Where the data sits. EU (France).
- Source code. Open source, where Cursor is not: you can read what it does rather than take the description on trust.
- Independently checked. GDPR.
Best for: Teams whose objection is where inference happens, not which editor they use
Mistral is not a Cursor replacement in the sense of something you install instead. It is the layer underneath: open-weight models including Codestral for completion and Devstral for coding work, served from Paris under French law, or downloaded and run on hardware you control.
That matters against Cursor specifically because Cursor is a very good client for inference it purchases elsewhere. Once you accept that framing, the jurisdiction problem moves from the editor to the endpoint, and Mistral is the endpoint European teams can point at. Its own coding product plugs into VS Code, JetBrains and Zed, and can be deployed on-premise or into a cloud account you own — which is precisely the option Cursor does not sell.
The gap is honest and worth stating. Cursor's agent, tuned around its own Composer model and a fork of the editor, is smoother than anything Mistral ships in front of its models today, and frontier coding benchmarks are still led by American labs.
What Mistral AI does better than Cursor
- Inference runs in France under French law, where Cursor's only purchasable region is the United States
- Open weights you can download, so a model on your own GPU has no provider at all
- Its coding product deploys on-premise or into your own cloud account, which Cursor does not offer at any tier
- Pay-per-token instead of a seat plus an unforecastable usage overage
- Plugs into VS Code, JetBrains and Zed rather than asking you to adopt a new editor
Where Mistral AI is a step down from Cursor
- Not an editor, so something else has to provide the interface Cursor gives you for free
- Agentic multi-file editing is less refined than Cursor's
- Self-hosting means buying and running GPUs, which Cursor makes somebody else's problem
- Release cadence is fast enough that model choices need revisiting every few months
Standout against Cursor. It is the only entry here that answers the question Cursor cannot: inference on European soil, or on a machine you own, with the model weights in your hands.
- Which law reaches it. US-incorporated despite French origins. Cursor is run from the United States, so the CLOUD Act obliges the provider to hand over data on a valid order regardless of which country the servers are in.
- Where the data sits. EU/US.
- Source code. Open source, where Cursor is not: you can read what it does rather than take the description on trust.
- Independently checked. GDPR.
Best for: Teams evaluating whether a self-hosted assistant is viable before committing to one
Start with the correction, because it is the whole reason this entry needs care: Hugging Face Inc. is incorporated in the United States, with Paris and New York operations and French founders. Against Cursor it does not win the jurisdiction argument on the company. It wins it on the artefact.
A model downloaded from the Hub and served on your own hardware is a file. It has no terms of service, no region, no residency programme to buy and no corporation that can be served with an order. That is a stronger position than any Cursor plan offers, and it is available to a team willing to run inference themselves.
It is also not a coding assistant. Nobody installs Hugging Face and gets completions; you use it to find the model that Continue, Refact.ai or Tabby will then serve. Treat this as the procurement step before the tool choice rather than as an alternative to Cursor on its own.
What Hugging Face does better than Cursor
- A downloaded model raises no residency question at all, where Cursor sells only a US region
- Open code models can be evaluated in Spaces before you commit a team to them
- The Transformers library and Inference API shorten the path from trial to a served endpoint
- Free tier and Pro from $9 a month, against Cursor Pro at $20 per developer
Where Hugging Face is a step down from Cursor
- Not a European company: US-incorporated, so a contract with it is a contract with an American counterparty
- Not an assistant — it supplies models, not completions in your editor
- Hosted inference is not the cheapest route once volume is real
- Needs machine-learning familiarity that a typical application team does not have
Standout against Cursor. It is the only entry that removes the vendor entirely rather than replacing it: the model becomes a file on your disk, and a file cannot be compelled to disclose anything.
- Which law reaches it. EU (Czech Republic). Cursor is run from the United States, so the CLOUD Act obliges the provider to hand over data on a valid order regardless of which country the servers are in.
- Where the data sits. EU and US regions; local models run on your machine.
- Source code. Closed source, as Cursor is.
- Independently checked. GDPR, enterprise no-training terms.
Best for: Teams on IntelliJ, PyCharm, GoLand, Rider or WebStorm who never wanted a new editor
The strongest argument for JetBrains against Cursor is not a feature, it is that nobody has to move. Cursor asks a team to adopt a forked editor; JetBrains AI Assistant asks them to enable something in the IDE they opened this morning. For an organisation of any size, that difference outweighs most feature comparisons.
On the question this page is about, JetBrains offers EU and US regions, enterprise terms that exclude your code from training, and local model support through LM Studio or Ollama for work that cannot leave the machine. JetBrains s.r.o. has run from Prague since 2000, which places the counterparty inside the EU rather than in San Francisco — and it is a longer track record than Anysphere has as a company.
What you give up is the agent. Junie handles multi-step work competently and is behind Cursor's, and the frontier models underneath are bought from the same American labs Cursor buys from unless you point it somewhere else.
What JetBrains AI Assistant does better than Cursor
- A Czech operating company, so the counterparty on the contract is inside the EU
- An EU region is selectable, where Cursor sells only a US residency programme
- No editor migration: it runs inside the IDE the team already uses
- Local models via LM Studio or Ollama for code that must stay on the machine
- AI Pro from about $10 a month, and included in the All Products Pack many teams already buy
Where JetBrains AI Assistant is a step down from Cursor
- Only works inside JetBrains IDEs, so a VS Code team gains nothing
- Junie is less capable than Cursor's agent on long multi-file changes
- Closed source, as Cursor is, so the claims are checked by certificate rather than by reading
- The underlying frontier models are third-party and mostly American
Standout against Cursor. It is the only tool here that changes the jurisdiction of your assistant without changing a single developer's editor.
- Which law reaches it. EU (Sweden). Cursor is run from the United States, so the CLOUD Act obliges the provider to hand over data on a valid order regardless of which country the servers are in.
- Where the data sits. EU for project data; model inference via third parties.
- Source code. Closed source, as Cursor is.
- Independently checked. GDPR.
Best for: Founders and product teams whose Cursor usage is really first drafts of new apps
A large share of Cursor licences are spent producing the first version of something rather than maintaining the twentieth. Lovable is built for exactly that slice: describe an application, get a working React and TypeScript project with Supabase behind it, edit the interface visually instead of prompting for every adjustment.
Against Cursor the interesting part is the exit. Two-way GitHub sync means the repository is a normal repository throughout, so the moment the prototype becomes real you clone it and carry on in whatever editor you like — including Cursor. Lovable AB is in Stockholm and keeps project data in the EU, which is more than Cursor offers for the same material.
Be precise about the limit, because it is easy to buy the wrong thing here. Lovable is weak at editing a large existing codebase, which is the work Cursor is genuinely excellent at, and its model inference runs through third parties rather than European ones.
What Lovable does better than Cursor
- A Swedish operating company with project data kept in the EU, against a San Francisco company with a US-only region
- Produces a conventional repository you can clone and keep, so the exit cost is a git clone
- Visual editing of the running interface rather than prompting for every change
- Free tier, then $25 a month, for work that would otherwise consume a Cursor seat
Where Lovable is a step down from Cursor
- Model inference runs via third-party providers, so it is not an end-to-end European path
- Poorly suited to maintaining a large existing codebase, which is Cursor's strongest ground
- Output needs engineering review before it carries real users
- Credit costs climb quickly once you iterate heavily
Standout against Cursor. It is the only entry here where the finished artefact is a normal Git repository rather than a session inside somebody's editor.
- Which law reaches it. EU (Netherlands). Cursor is run from the United States, so the CLOUD Act obliges the provider to hand over data on a valid order regardless of which country the servers are in.
- Where the data sits. Fully self-hosted, or EU cloud.
- Source code. Open source, where Cursor is not: you can read what it does rather than take the description on trust.
- Independently checked. GDPR.
Best for: Regulated teams that cannot send source code to any third party, region or no region
If the reason you are reading this page is that Cursor has no European region, Refact.ai answers it by removing the region from the problem. Self-hosted, it runs completion, chat and an agent with inference inside the same deployment, so there is no outbound call to have a jurisdiction.
It is BSD-3-Clause and free to run yourself, from a company in Amsterdam, with an EU-hosted cloud from around $10 a month for teams that want the product without the operations. The plug-ins cover VS Code and JetBrains, so unlike Cursor it does not ask anyone to change editor to adopt it.
Its distinguishing feature against every hosted assistant is fine-tuning on your own codebase, which matters most in exactly the large proprietary repositories where generic completions are least useful. The price is GPUs, an owner, and completions that will not match a frontier model on hard reasoning.
What Refact.ai does better than Cursor
- Self-hosted inference, so no residency programme is needed and none has to be bought
- Open source under BSD-3-Clause, where Cursor is closed and audited by certificate
- Fine-tuning on your private codebase, which no hosted assistant on this page offers
- A Dutch operating company for the cloud edition, against a San Francisco one
- No per-seat licence when self-hosted, against $20 per developer on Cursor Pro or $40 on Teams, plus usage
Where Refact.ai is a step down from Cursor
- Needs GPU capacity and somebody to own the deployment
- Locally runnable models trail frontier quality on difficult reasoning
- Less polished than Cursor, and visibly so in the first weeks
- Fine-tuning only pays off once the codebase is large enough to have conventions
Standout against Cursor. It is the only complete assistant here — completion, chat and agent — that can run with no network egress at all.
- Which law reaches it. Project is US-incorporated; inference is wherever you point it. Cursor is run from the United States, so the CLOUD Act obliges the provider to hand over data on a valid order regardless of which country the servers are in.
- Where the data sits. Whatever provider you configure — EU, US or local.
- Source code. Open source, where Cursor is not: you can read what it does rather than take the description on trust.
- Independently checked. Depends on configured provider.
Best for: Teams that want to keep VS Code and decide for themselves where the code goes
Continue is not a company you are switching to, and that is the point. It is an Apache 2.0 plug-in for VS Code and JetBrains that supplies completion, chat and an agent while leaving the model entirely to you: Mistral in Paris, a European endpoint, a local Ollama or vLLM server, or, if you like, the same American provider Cursor uses.
Against Cursor that inverts the relationship. Cursor decides where inference happens and sells you a region; Continue makes it a line of configuration your security team can read, alongside explicit context providers that show what is actually sent with each request. A vendor statement about data handling and a config file you can inspect are not the same class of assurance.
The project itself is US-incorporated, which this page states rather than hides. It matters less than usual here, because the project holds none of your code — whoever you configure does.
What Continue does better than Cursor
- You choose the inference endpoint, so European or local processing is a setting rather than a purchase
- Apache 2.0 and free: no seat cost and no usage overage, only your model bill
- Context providers make the exact payload inspectable, which no closed assistant allows
- Installs into VS Code and JetBrains, so nobody adopts a forked editor
Where Continue is a step down from Cursor
- The project is US-incorporated, so it is not a European counterparty either
- Requires configuration and API key management instead of working on first launch
- Agent mode is behind Cursor's by a wide margin
- Quality is entirely inherited from whichever model you point it at
Standout against Cursor. It is the only option here where "where does our source code go" has an answer you can read in a file rather than one you have to take on trust.
- Which law reaches it. Runs wherever you deploy it; maintainer is US-based. Cursor is run from the United States, so the CLOUD Act obliges the provider to hand over data on a valid order regardless of which country the servers are in.
- Where the data sits. Entirely on your own servers.
- Source code. Open source, where Cursor is not: you can read what it does rather than take the description on trust.
- Independently checked. GDPR — you remain sole processor.
Best for: Organisations with a hard rule that source code never leaves the network
Tabby is Apache 2.0, runs entirely on your own servers and has no cloud component in the free edition.
Against a product whose only residency option is American, that is the most complete rebuttal available: there is no region because there is no remote service. One correction to the usual write-up of this tool: Tabby does collect usage statistics by default — the serve command, model name, device and version, not your source — and its documentation tells you to set TABBY_DISABLE_USAGE_COLLECTION=1 to stop it.
It is deliberately narrower than everything above it. Completion and chat are solid, the Enterprise tier adds SSO and access control, and the agentic multi-file editing that people buy Cursor for is not really the proposition. For a team whose security policy already blocks Cursor at the firewall, narrower and permitted beats broader and forbidden.
The maintainer is US-based, which is worth saying on a page about European alternatives. It changes nothing operationally, because nothing you run on your own hardware reports back, and it does change the answer if your requirement is a European entity to contract with.
What Tabby does better than Cursor
- No hosted service at all, so the residency question never arises — and the usage statistics it does send by default are switched off with one environment variable
- Apache 2.0 with no per-seat cost, against Cursor's seat plus metered usage
- Runs air-gapped, which no plan Cursor sells can do
- Enterprise tier adds SSO and access control without moving anything off your servers
Where Tabby is a step down from Cursor
- Maintained from the United States, so it is not a European vendor in contractual terms
- Much narrower than Cursor: this is completion and chat, not an agent that refactors your repository
- Requires your own GPUs and a person to run them
- Smaller community and slower feature pace than the commercial options
Standout against Cursor. It is the only entry here that can run with the network cable unplugged, which is the version of data residency that needs no documentation to verify.
What actually breaks when you switch
The first surprise is that the migration is an editor migration. Cursor is a fork of VS Code, so settings and extensions mostly travel back, but the rules files, the prompt habits and the agent workflows your team built up over a year do not port to anything. Expect a fortnight where everyone is slower and say so in advance, because the alternative is people quietly reinstalling Cursor.
The second is inference capacity. Every option here that genuinely answers the jurisdiction question — Refact.ai self-hosted, Tabby, a Mistral model on your own hardware — replaces a monthly invoice with a GPU, a deployment and an owner. Teams cost the hardware and forget the owner, and the owner is the part that decides whether the thing is still running in six months.
The third is quality expectation. Cursor's agent is the best in this comparison and the replacements are not close on that specific axis. If the business case for AI assistance in your organisation was built on agentic refactoring demos, rebuild the case on completion and chat before you move, or the project will be judged against a benchmark nothing here meets.
Does Privacy Mode make Cursor acceptable for a European employer?
It removes one objection and leaves another standing. With Privacy Mode enabled, Cursor says your code is not used to train its models, and it holds zero-data-retention agreements with the providers it calls, so the frontier labs behind the completions should not be storing your repository either.
What it does not do is change where the processing happens or which law reaches Anysphere Inc. Cursor also notes that risk classifiers may temporarily hold data while a suspected policy violation is investigated, which is reasonable engineering and is still an exception to "nothing is stored".
So the honest framing for a data protection officer is: Privacy Mode addresses secondary use, not location and not jurisdiction. If the requirement on the form is about training, you can satisfy it. If it is about where the data sits, you cannot, and no setting inside the product will change that.
Can I keep the agent and move only the model?
Partly, and this is where the choice actually gets made. Continue is built for exactly this: an Apache 2.0 plug-in for VS Code and JetBrains where the backend is a configuration entry, so you can point it at Mistral in Paris, at a self-hosted endpoint, or at a local Ollama server, and the answer to "where does our code go" becomes something a security reviewer can read rather than something a vendor asserts.
Refact.ai goes further by shipping the inference with the assistant, so a self-hosted install has no outbound call at all, and Tabby takes the same position with no cloud component whatsoever.
The part that does not transfer is Cursor's agent quality. Multi-step editing is where the gap between these tools and Cursor is widest, and anyone claiming otherwise has not run both on a large codebase in the same week.
Which of these actually keeps source code inside the building?
Refact.ai and Tabby, and only those two without qualification. Refact.ai is BSD-3-Clause, free to run yourself, and includes the model serving rather than calling out to a cloud. Tabby is Apache 2.0 and has no hosted component in the free edition, though it does collect usage statistics by default — server command, model, device and version, not your code — and you turn that off with TABBY_DISABLE_USAGE_COLLECTION=1.
Continue can achieve the same result but does not guarantee it, because the guarantee depends on which endpoint you configured. That is a feature if you want the choice and a liability if nobody audits the choice.
Everything else here involves a network call somewhere. JetBrains lets you pick a region or run a local model through LM Studio or Ollama; Lovable keeps project data in the EU while sending inference to third parties. Both are reasonable positions and neither is "the code never leaves".
Is it dishonest to list Hugging Face, Continue and Tabby as European alternatives?
It would be to leave it unsaid, so here it is plainly. Hugging Face Inc. is incorporated in the United States with French roots and offices in Paris and New York. The Continue project is US-incorporated. Tabby is maintained from the United States. None of the three is a European company in the sense that Mistral, JetBrains or Lovable are.
They earn their place on a different argument. A model you download has no jurisdiction, an Apache 2.0 plug-in you configure has no vendor holding your code, and a Tabby server on your own hardware makes the question of who could be compelled to hand over your repository meaningless — there is nobody to compel.
If your requirement is a European counterparty on the contract, those three fail it and Mistral, JetBrains AI Assistant, Lovable and Refact.ai pass. If your requirement is that source code does not leave the network, it is the other way round.
Which one to pick
If your blocker is that Cursor cannot process code in Europe, and your team is on JetBrains IDEs, JetBrains AI Assistant is the cheapest correct answer on this page: an EU region, an EU counterparty and no editor migration.
If the rule is stricter than that — source code does not leave the network — Refact.ai self-hosted is the complete answer and Tabby is the minimal one. Both convert a licence into hardware and an owner, and both make the residency question disappear instead of moving it.
If you want to keep VS Code and keep the decision, Continue plus a Mistral endpoint is the combination that gets you European inference without a new editor or a new vendor, at the cost of setting it up yourself.
And if the case for Cursor in your organisation rests on its agent, do not pretend a replacement exists. Enforce Privacy Mode across the whole team from a Business plan, write down that processing happens in the United States, and look again when Cursor ships the European region its documentation says is being built.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not as a purchasable region. Cursor's enterprise documentation describes a US-only residency programme for Enterprise teams, priced at roughly ten per cent extra on eligible models, and says European coverage is inference-only on request with broader support in development. Any comparison page telling you to select an EU region in Cursor is describing a setting that does not exist.
JetBrains AI Assistant if your team already lives in IntelliJ or PyCharm, because nobody has to change editor. Refact.ai if source code cannot leave the network and you want an agent anyway. Continue if you want to keep VS Code and decide the model yourself. Mistral if what you actually need is European inference behind whichever tool you keep. There is no single answer because Cursor bundles an editor, an agent and a model, and these tools unbundle it.
Yes, and it is worth separating certification from location. Cursor lists ISO/IEC 27001:2022, ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and a SOC 2 Type II attestation. Those say the company runs a documented security and AI management system; they say nothing about which country processes your code or which government can compel disclosure from a San Francisco corporation.
Not with Privacy Mode enabled, by its own statement, and it holds zero-data-retention agreements with the model providers it calls. Without Privacy Mode, Cursor's data-use page is explicit that codebase data, prompts, editor actions and code snippets may be used and stored to improve its features and train its models. The setting is enforced centrally on Business and Enterprise and left to the individual developer below that.
Harder than leaving an extension, easier than leaving a platform. Cursor is a fork of VS Code, so your extensions, settings and keybindings mostly carry back to VS Code itself, which is where Continue and Tabby install. The genuine losses are the agent behaviour you have learned to prompt and the rules files you wrote for it, neither of which ports.
Yes, and two tools here are built for it. Tabby runs entirely on your own servers with no cloud component, and Refact.ai self-hosted includes model serving in the same stack.
One setting to remember before an air-gapped deployment: Tabby collects usage statistics by default and you disable them with TABBY_DISABLE_USAGE_COLLECTION=1. Both need GPU capacity and somebody to own the deployment, and both will trail a frontier model on hard reasoning. For a defence supplier or a bank that is the trade being offered, and it is usually the right one.
Per seat, often yes; in total, it depends who runs the hardware.
JetBrains AI Pro starts around $10 a month and is bundled into the All Products Pack many teams already buy, against Cursor Pro at $20 a month and Cursor Teams at $40 per user, the two figures Cursor actually prints on its pricing page. Continue and Tabby have no licence cost at all, so the bill becomes inference and operations. What disappears in every case is Cursor's usage overage, which is the part of the invoice nobody can forecast.
No, and pretending otherwise would be the easiest way to waste your quarter. Cursor's multi-file agent is the strongest in this comparison, JetBrains' Junie and Refact.ai's agent mode are behind it, and Continue's agent trails both. If your team's productivity case rests specifically on agentic editing, the honest advice is to keep Cursor, turn Privacy Mode on centrally, and revisit when European coverage ships.
A GPU, a person and a month. The licence is free for Tabby and self-hosted Refact.ai, so the real budget lines are inference hardware, someone who owns updates and uptime, and the weeks in which completions feel worse than what the team had. Teams that budget for the first two and not the third are the ones that quietly go back.
Who worked on this review
Explore More European Alternatives
Discover privacy-focused European alternatives to other popular US tech services.