Cursor 2.0 vs Claude Code: Same Bug, 2 Hours, Surprising Winner

A 26-minute real-world test on an AutoGPT bug. Multi-agent features, Haiku vs Sonnet performance, and the pricing difference nobody mentions.

I spent two hours yesterday testing Cursor 2.0 against Claude Code on a real bug fix in AutoGPT’s codebase. Not a contrived example. Not a toy problem. An actual open-source issue that required understanding the codebase, making changes across multiple files, and verifying the fix actually worked.

Both tools solved it. But how they got there—and what it cost me—tells you everything you need to know about which one belongs in your workflow.

Here’s what I found that nobody’s talking about:

The Setup: AutoGPT had a front-end bug where agent names reverted to “Agent Executor” after page reload. Simple enough to describe, but it required understanding the React component structure, state management, and the data flow between backend and frontend.

The Approach: I gave both tools the exact same prompt and watched them work. No hand-holding. No course corrections. Just two AI coding assistants solving the same problem their own way.

The Surprises: Cursor’s multi-agent features aren’t just marketing fluff. Claude Code’s Haiku model actually went deeper than Sonnet (and way faster). The pricing difference is bigger than you think. And there’s an open-source tool that might beat them both for specific workflows.

---

The full 26-minute walkthrough video below shows exactly how each tool approached the problem, what changed in the code, and the testing process to verify both fixes actually worked.

Unlock the complete video comparison to see:

• Side-by-side screen recordings of both tools solving the same bug

• Detailed breakdown of Cursor’s multi-agent work tree management

• Claude Code’s Haiku vs Sonnet performance on the same task

• The open-source alternative (Claude Squad) that might change your workflow

• Real cost analysis: what you’re actually paying per bug fix

• My honest take on which tool wins for different use cases