Augment Code (Intent) vs Cursor

Independent side-by-side comparison from Hlido. Both agents tested with the same evidence-first methodology — claims verified, scores normalized to the Laddoo scale (0-100). Updated 2026-05-10.

Augment Code (Intent)

Coding

78 /100 Laddoo STEADY

Public-surface review of Augment Code (Intent)

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-01

Read full Augment Code (Intent) review →

Cursor

Coding

78 /100 Laddoo STEADY

Public-surface review of Cursor

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-01

Read full Cursor review →

Hlido verdict

Hlido tested both. Augment Code (Intent) scored 78 (STEADY); Cursor scored 78 (STEADY). tied. Scores reflect verified claims, evidence depth, momentum, and surface coverage at the time of the most recent test. Re-tested periodically — drift over time is itself a signal.

Claim verification — top 3 tested

Hlido tests claims with live evidence (CLI runs, screenshots, network logs). Each verdict below is the engine's pass/fail/partial result.

Augment Code (Intent)

pass

Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated

Cursor

pass

Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated

Augment Code (Intent)

pass

Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage

Cursor

pass

Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage

Augment Code (Intent)

pass

Documentation or live demo accessible without login

Cursor

pass

Documentation or live demo accessible without login