Does Cursor Have a Defensible Moat?

Notorious: the best founders, startups, strategies, metrics and community.

Current subscribers: 11,468, +141 since last post

Share the love: please forward to colleagues and friends! 🙏

Does Cursor Have a Defensible Moat?

In the world of AI code assistants, one startup has drawn both hype and some recent skepticism: Cursor, a collaborative, AI-native coding environment that’s quickly gaining traction with developers. Cursor is essentially a fork of VS Code supercharged with AI. It lets programmers chat with their codebase, generate and refactor code via natural language, and even have an “agent” complete multi-step coding tasks autonomously. Backed by big-name investors and used by engineers at companies like OpenAI and Shopify, Cursor is on a meteoric rise​. The company is reportedly in talks to raise a Series C at a $10B valuation. That's a staggering leap from its $2.5B valuation just a few months ago. With $300M+ in annual recurring revenue (ARR) and a user base of over 360,000+ developers, Cursor is making waves in the developer tools space. But amid this excitement, a pressing question has emerged: Does Cursor have a defensible moat, or just a head start in the AI coding race? Let’s debate both sides.

The Bull Case: Product Love, Integration, and First-Mover Edge

Proponents argue that Cursor’s product experience and UX are a generation ahead of the competition. Unlike retrofitting an AI plugin into an old IDE, Cursor was built AI-first. It’s a standalone editor deeply integrated with large language models (LLMs) at its core. That means features like next-action predictions, one-click code rewrites, and chatting directly with your entire repository are not bolted on, they’re woven into how you code. Developers rave that this feels like pair programming with an genius partner on call 24/7. According to A16Z (an investor), thousands of users have already signed up and “give glowing reviews of the product,” with many becoming paid users who “rarely switch back to other IDEs”. That kind of user delight and retention hints at a UX moat: once you get used to an AI co-coder that actually understands your project, going back to a dumb text editor feels painfully limiting.

Early community and feedback loops further reinforce Cursor’s advantage. As an agile startup, the Cursor team iterates at breakneck speed, pushing out new features and improvements based on user input from their forum and Discord. They’ve cultivated a passionate user base that effectively co-develops the product by surfacing pain points and wish lists. This tight feedback cycle lets Cursor stay UI/UX-forward in a way big incumbents struggle to match. The result is a fast-evolving toolkit finely tuned to developer needs, a moving target for would-be copycats. Moreover, Cursor smartly leveraged go-to-market strategy and traction among power users: by onboarding engineers at influential tech companies and engaging early adopters, they created tech buzz and FOMO. That led to rapid early traction, sources say Cursor became one of the more popular AI coding tools and even hit $4M in monthly revenue within its first year​. In the winner-takes-most world of developer tools, such a head start in users and mindshare can compound into a durable lead.

Under the hood, Cursor is also amassing a potential data and infrastructure moat. Every code generation, edit, and fix that developers perform with Cursor provides feedback (implicit or explicit) that can improve its AI models. Over time, this usage data creates a flywheel: Cursor can fine-tune its systems to better fit real-world coding patterns, catching bugs or suggesting solutions in a way generic models can’t. The company’s recent acquisition of Supermaven bolsters this data advantage as well. Supermaven brought in an in-house generative code model called Babble that can understand massive codebases with super-low latency​. By integrating Babble and co-designing the AI with the editor UI, Cursor controls more of the tech stack end-to-end. In other words, they’re not just calling OpenAI’s API; they’re gradually developing proprietary model enhancements tailored to their users’ workflows. Combine that with the practical infrastructure work (optimizing context window sizes, indexing entire repos, ensuring privacy modes for enterprise​), and you get a product that’s technically hard to replicate. First-mover advantage in this space isn’t just about being first to launch, it’s about having spent thousands of hours solving gnarly integration issues (AI prompt management, multi-file editing UX, etc.) that any newcomer will also have to figure out. Team and execution matter for moats too: Cursor’s team seems obsessed with AI coding and laser-focused on experience, which has led them to “simply get it right” where others have stumbled​. All these factors form a narrative that Cursor is digging a wide trench around its lead in AI-assisted development environments.

The Bear Case: Commoditized Brains and Imitators at the Gate

Yet for all those strengths, skeptics counter that Cursor’s moat might be more mirage than fortress. The harsh reality of the AI world in 2025 is that the brains behind Cursor, the large language models doing the heavy lifting, are rapidly commoditizing ad evidenced how good Claude Code is becoming. Today’s underlying model that powers Cursor’s code genius (whether it’s GPT-4, Claude, another API, or Babble) could be matched by an open-source equivalent tomorrow. In fact, we’re already seeing open models catch up to proprietary ones at breakneck speed. Meta’s open release of Code Llama and its successors has demonstrated GPT-4-level coding prowess in the wild​, and a host of community-driven models (e.g. StarCoder, Mistral) are improving monthly. One recent analysis put it bluntly: “LLMs are… commoditized components” of the stack now, and the only real differentiator is the data or ecosystem built around them​. This means that any technological edge Cursor has due to its AI could prove fleeting. A determined competitor can take the same open-source LLM that Cursor uses or fine-tunes, fork the same open-source VS Code base, and end up with a very similar product. In other words, if the secret sauce is just “VS Code + good LLM,” it’s not much of a secret. As one Hacker News commenter quipped, “Clone VS Code, add a few custom blobs and extensions, API to existing LLMs. For that, $20 a month?” The barriers to entry in AI coding assistants aren’t huge when everyone has access to state-of-the-art models and a popular editor framework.

Competition in this arena is not theoretical, it’s already here, and coming from all sides. Large incumbents are baking AI into their own tools: Microsoft’s VS Code isn’t standing still (recent releases hint at more AI-native features to fend off Cursor​), and GitHub Copilot (with ChatGPT in the backend) is deeply integrated into developers’ existing workflows. GitHub has an army of 1.8 million paying Copilot users and is rolling out its own Chat and voice features in the IDE. Windsurf has been growing very fast and has high user love, but is rumored to be acquired by OpenAI for $3B which will further extend its distribution. Amazon has CodeWhisperer. Upstart Replit, with its Ghostwriter AI, offers an AI-powered IDE in the browser. And for the highly motivated hackers, there are open-source projects to create “AIDEs” (AI development environments) that mimic Cursor’s functionality using free models. The truth is, none of Cursor’s individual features are completely unique, whether it’s code chat, autocompletion, or bulk edits, you can find an alternative implementation somewhere. Over time, what one tool can do, others tend to learn. That puts pressure on Cursor to continuously innovate just to stay ahead of the pack. If the moat rests on feature velocity, what happens when the giants start moving just as fast? OpenAI with Windsurf could move just as fast as Cursor and can ship AI features to the millions of VS Code users overnight via an update. Cursor will have to run hard to keep its early lead.

There’s also the question of sustainable advantage in the long run. While Cursor has a growing community, the network effects in developer tools are limited, this isn’t a social media platform where more users make the product inherently better for each other (aside from maybe more community plugin sharing). Developers can and will churn if a better solution comes along, especially if it’s the difference between a free built-in tool and a $20/month add-on. And though Cursor is amassing usage data, one could argue that giants like OpenAI/Windsurf and GitHub/Microsoft have an even bigger data moat (they sit on decades of coding data from GitHub repos and Copilot interactions). Open-source communities, meanwhile, benefit from each other’s improvements transparently, when someone fine-tunes an open model to improve its coding ability, everyone can use that model the next day. In this light, any data flywheel Cursor hopes to spin might be outrun by the sheer scale of data available to the open-source and Big Tech efforts. Finally, relying on others’ platforms cuts both ways: Cursor’s innovation is effectively subsidized by VS Code (open source) and by whichever AI model it uses. If Microsoft decided to change VS Code’s licensing or if OpenAI changed API terms, Cursor would have to respond. The recent snafu where Cursor’s own AI support bot hallucinated a false policy and stirred user backlash​ shows how precarious building on cutting-edge AI can be, mistakes can erode user trust, and trust is a big part of any moat.

What Cursor Could Do Next to Fortify Its Moat

If Cursor wants to convert early momentum into long-term defensibility, it can’t just keep shipping features—it needs to architect strategic moats. Here are a few areas where it could play offense:

• Own the Social Layer of Coding
  Cursor could build the social graph for developers within its IDE, think GitHub meets Figma meets Discord. Features like real-time collaboration, shared debugging sessions, and public code walkthroughs could turn Cursor into the place where devs not only write code, but build reputation, relationships, and learning loops. The more developers use it to work together, the harder it is to leave.

• Go Deep on Proprietary Data Flywheels
  Cursor can lean into fine-tuning its AI on actual user behavior: common bug patterns, code review preferences, preferred architecture choices. If that data stays in-house and improves model performance in ways open competitors can’t match, that becomes a self-reinforcing moat.

• Verticalize for Teams and Enterprises
  Move from individual developer workflows to team-based ones. Cursor could become the AI-native replacement for static internal wikis, onboarding docs, and code reviews. Integrations with CI/CD, observability tools, and ticketing systems would further lock in adoption at the org level.

• Turn Cursor Into a Platform
  Opening up Cursor to third-party plugins, agents, or even model extensions would create an ecosystem around it. If devs build on top of Cursor instead of just inside it, platform dynamics kick in, and platforms are much harder to displace than products.

• Own the Deployment Loop
  If Cursor expands from code generation to code deployment (preview environments, edge shipping, AI-assisted testing), it could become the default place where code goes from prompt to production. That end-to-end loop would be tough to unseat.

So, Moat or Not?

Ultimately, whether Cursor has a defensible moat comes down to which narrative wins out. On one side, you have the argument that Cursor’s exceptional developer experience, tight-knit community, and head start in integrating AI deeply into coding workflows will give it a lasting edge. Its focused team and fast execution could keep it ahead of slower-moving rivals, and over time it might accumulate proprietary advantages (data, fine-tuned models, enterprise integrations) that form a real moat. On the other side, you have the reality that the core technology, LLMS that write code, is becoming a commodity, and a slew of competitors (from open-source enthusiasts to trillion-dollar companies) are racing through the same opportunity. I would say Cursor has amassed some moats from its first mover advanatge and its on them to keep building the best product. If they do that, users will stick with them and continue to flock to the product, but competition is fierce and racing to catch up.

Thanks for reading. By way of background, I am an early-stage investor at Wing and a former founder. Please reach out to me on X @zacharydewitt or at zach@wing.vc. Some of the early-stage PLG + AI companies that I have the privilege to work with and learn from are: AirOps, Copy.ai, Deepgram, Hireguide, Slang.ai, Tango and Workmate.

Operating Benchmarks (from PLG Startups):

I will continue to update these metrics and add new metrics. Let me know what metrics you want me to add (zach@wing.vc)

Organic Traffic (as % of all website traffic):

• Great: 70%

• Good: 50%

Conversion rate (website → free user):

• Great: 10%

• Good: 5%

Activation rate (free user → activated user):

• Great: 50%

• Good: 30%

Paid conversion rate (free user → paid user):

• Great: 10%

• Good: 5%

Enterprise conversion rate (free user → enterprise plan):

• Great: 4%

• Good: 2%

3-month user retention (% of all users still using product after 3 months):

• Great: 30%

• Good: 15%

Conversion from waitlist to free user:

• <1 month on waitlist: ~50%

• >3 months on waitlist: 20%

For more detail on acqusition rates by channel (Organic, SEM, Social etc), please refer to this prior Notorious episode.

Financial Benchmarks (from PLG Public Companies):

Financial data as of previous business day market close.

Best-in-Class Benchmarking:

15 Highest EV/ NTM Revenue Multiples:

Complete Dataset (click to zoom):

Note: TTM = Trailing Twelve Months; NTM = Next Twelve Months. Rule of 40 = TTM Revenue Growth % + FCF Margin %. GM-Adjusted CAC Payback = Change in Quarterly Revenue / (Gross Margin % * Prior Quarter Sales & Marketing Expense) * 12. Recent IPOs will have temporary “N/A”s as Wall Street Research has to wait to initiate converge.

Recent PLG + AI Financings:

Seed:

• Adaptive Computer, a no-code web app platform built for non-programmers to create apps using text prompts, has raised $7M at a $28M valuation. The round was led by Pebblebed, with participation from Weekend Fund, Conviction Partners and Anti Fund.

• Amplifier, a security platform that uses AI to automate user engagement and close security gaps in real time, has raised $5.6M. The round was led by WestWave Capital and Cota Capital.

• Cluely, an AI app that delivers live answers to users, has raised $5.3M. The round was led by Abstract Ventures and Susa Ventures.

• Kenzo Security, an agentic AI platform designed to help security teams manage the many facets of modern security operations, has raised $4.5M. The round was led by The General Partnership.

• P-1 AI, an AI-powered engineering agent that helps users design physical systems more efficiently, has raised $23M. The round was led by Radical Ventures, with participation from Predictive Venture Partners, Schematic Ventures, VitalStage Ventures and Village Global.

• Ravenna, an AI-powered help desk tool built for teams that work in Slack, has raised $15M at a $62M valuation. The round was led by Khosla Ventures, Founders' Co-op and Madrona Venture Labs.

• Tella, a screen recording platform designed to help users create professional videos for marketing and education, has raised $2.1M. The round was led by Gradient Ventures, with participation from The Singularity Group, Mento VC, Lobster Capital and AltaIR Capital.

• Terra Security, an agentic-AI platform built for continuous web application penetration testing, has raised $7.5M at a $31M valuation. The round was led by SYN Ventures and FXP Ventures, with participation from Underscore VC.

Early Stage:

• Capably, an intelligent automation platform that helps businesses adopt AI for smarter work delegation, has raised $4.07M. The round was led by Boost Capital Partners, with participation from Telefónica, Koro Capital, Ascension, Sure Valley Ventures, Concept Ventures, Haatch, Wayra and Arāya Ventures.

• Manus AI, a multipurpose AI agent designed to control multiple models and autonomously complete complex tasks, has raised $75M at a $500M valuation. The round was led by Benchmark.

• Reco, a startup using generative AI and AI agents to help organizations strengthen the security of their SaaS applications, has raised $25M. The round was led by Khosla Ventures, Founders' Co-op and Madrona Venture Labs.

Series A:

• Ascertain, an AI-powered case management platform that automates administrative tasks for healthcare teams, has raised $10M. The round was led by Deerfield Management, with participation from Northwell Health.

• Exowatt, a renewable energy company providing modular energy solutions tailored for energy-intensive applications like data centers, has raised $70M. The round was led by Felicis, with participation from Andreessen Horowitz, 8090 Industries, MVP Ventures, MCJ, Thrive Capital, Goat Ventures, Atomic Labs, Starwood Capital Group and StepStone Group.

• Listen Labs, an AI-based interviewer designed to get insights from customers, has raised $27M. The round was led by Sequoia Capital.

• Reducto, a startup helping companies turn their most complex documents into LLM-ready inputs, has raised $24.5M. The round was led by Benchmark, with participation from First Round Capital, BoxGroup and Y Combinator.

Series B:

• Cynomi, a startup that is creating an AI-based ‘virtual CISO’ for SMB cybersecurity, has raised $37M. The round was led by Entrée Capital and Insight Partners, with participation from Flint Capital, Canaan Partners and S16VC.

• Endor Labs, a startup that builds tools to scan AI-generated code for vulnerabilities, has raised $93M at a $635M valuation. The round was led by DFJ Growth, with participation from Citi Ventures, Salesforce Ventures, Coatue Management, S32, Dell Technologies Capital and Lightspeed Venture Partners.

• Manychat, a conversational AI and automation platform for social and messaging apps, has raised $140M at a $630M valuation. The round was led by Summit Partners.

• Push Security, a cybersecurity company specializing in identity attacks in the browser, has raised $30M. The round was led by Redpoint Ventures, with participation from GV, B3 Capital, Datadog and Decibel Partners.

• Sentra, a startup offering cloud-native data security for the AI era, has raised $50M at a $205.1M valuation. The round was led by Key1 Capital, with participation from Munich Re Ventures, Bessemer Venture Partners, Zeev Ventures and Standard Investments.

Series D:

• Chainguard, a company specializing in open-source software, security, and cloud-native development, has raised $365M at a $3.5B valuation. The round was led by IVP and Kleiner Perkins, with participation from Salesforce Ventures, Fortius Ventures, Datadog, K5 Global, 515 Ventures, K5 Ventures, Amplify Partners, Sequoia Capital, Mantis VC, LiveOak Ventures, Banana Capital, Redpoint Ventures, Spark Capital, Lightspeed Venture Partners and Alpha Partners.

• Supabase, an open-source backend platform that assists developers in building and managing applications, has raised $200M at a $2B valuation. The round was led by Accel, with participation from Coatue Management, Felicis, Craft Ventures and Y Combinator.