The short answer
Use Cursor if you write software. It is the most refined AI-native code editor — Composer mode, agents that touch multiple files, Tab completion, codebase-aware chat. Cursor's rhythm: you describe an outcome, the editor writes the code, you stay in conversation.
Use Smalt AI if you do finance and knowledge work. We're applying the same principle to deliverables outside code — Excel models with formulas, McKinsey-grade decks, sourced research, contact enrichment, outbound drafts. Brief in plain language; the artefact lands in your inbox.
These aren't competitors — they're complements covering different domains. Most teams that use Cursor for engineering will benefit from Smalt AI for finance work, and vice versa.
Capability comparison
| Capability | Cursor | Smalt AI |
|---|---|---|
| Domain | Software engineering — codebases, IDEs, dev workflows | Finance and knowledge work — Excel, PowerPoint, sourced research, contacts, emails |
| Form factor | Native desktop IDE (VS Code fork) | Web app at app.smaltai.com — outputs are downloadable .xlsx, .pptx, plus on-screen briefs |
| Codebase-aware chat | Excellent — indexes the whole repo, retrieves relevant files in context | Not the use case — Smalt AI's "codebase" is a finance toolset (filings, market data, Composio tools) |
| Build a DCF / LBO / pitch deck | Out of scope — Cursor writes code, not finance deliverables | One-line brief → working .xlsx or .pptx |
| Compose / agents (multi-file edits) | Excellent — agentic coding inside the IDE is a major Cursor strength | Single chat — sub-agent routing is invisible to the user |
| Models | OpenAI / Anthropic / others — user-selectable | Anthropic Claude (Sonnet, Opus, 1M context) + Gemini for fast classification |
| Pricing | Free; Pro $20/mo; Business $40/user/mo | Free 500 credits; Basic ~$18/mo; Pro ~$45/mo; Enterprise self-host |
The shared principle: describe what you want, the AI builds it
Cursor's value is letting an engineer describe software in plain language and letting the model write it. You stay in the conversation — about the outcome, the constraints, the acceptance criteria — and the AI handles the syntax, the libraries, the edge cases. It works because writing code is a translation problem, and the translator finally got good enough.
Smalt AI applies the same principle to the rest of the workday. Build a DCF for ABC Corp. Outline a 12-slide pitch on AI in capital markets. Find ten target firms doing X and draft an outbound. Stress-test this thesis. The interesting work is what you want to happen; the construction work is everything between the brief and the artefact. The AI handles the construction.
Where Cursor is the right tool
For software engineering, Cursor is class-leading. The codebase indexing, the Compose / agent modes, the Tab completion that feels prescient — they're all built around the rhythm of how engineers actually work. If you write code, Cursor pays back its $20–40/mo many times over.
For refactors and multi-file edits, Cursor's agent mode lets you describe a change in plain English and have it land across the right set of files coherently. The AI can run tests, see the failures, and iterate. That's a different shape of capability than chat-with-the-editor.
For codebase Q&A — "where is this function called?", "what does this module do?", "summarise the API surface here" — Cursor's retrieval over the repo is faster and more accurate than ChatGPT or Claude in the chat product alone.
Where Smalt AI is the right tool
For finance and knowledge work deliverables, Smalt AI is purpose-fit the way Cursor is purpose-fit for code. Excel models with real formulas, decks with consulting-grade typography, research with paragraph-level citations, outbound with verified contacts. Each is a domain Cursor doesn't address.
For knowledge work as a category, Smalt AI is the AI coworker the way Cursor is the AI coding environment. Same principle — plain-language brief, finished artefact — applied to a different surface area of work.
How they fit together
On many teams the same person uses both. An analyst who codes some scripts uses Cursor for the codebase and Smalt AI for the financial model. A product engineer at a finance firm uses Cursor for the app and Smalt AI for the investor deck. The two products don't compete; they cover different jobs.
The simplest mental model: Cursor for the things you'd open VS Code for. Smalt AI for the things you'd open Excel or PowerPoint for. Both built on the principle that the AI should handle the construction so you stay in conversation about the outcome.
Honest caveats
- If your work is mostly software engineering, Smalt AI is not the right shape for that. Use Cursor for code; use Smalt AI when finance deliverables show up in your week.
- If your work is finance with no engineering, Cursor is not for you — its value is hyperspecific to the IDE workflow.
- The two products share a principle (plain-language brief, finished output), not a domain. The products applying that principle well will look different per domain.
The summary
Cursor is for code. Smalt AI is for the rest of knowledge work — finance models, decks, research, outbound. Same idea, different domain. They occupy adjacent spaces, not the same one. Use both if your week has both kinds of work in it.
500 free credits, no credit card. Try Smalt AI on a real workflow and see for yourself.