Cursor vs omp
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
Short answer
- omp is growing faster: +2,860 GitHub stars in the last 30 days vs +116 for Cursor.
- Pick Cursor for: the AI Code Editor. Pick omp for: ⌥ Coding agent with the IDE wired in.
From GitHub data refreshed daily.
Cursorfree
The AI Code Editor
o
ompopen-source
⌥ Coding agent with the IDE wired in. Built by Stencil Labs.
Metrics
| Cursor | omp | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 33.3k | 34.2k |
| Star velocity /mo | 115.73684210526316 | 2.9k |
| Commits (90d) | 0 | 14.0k |
| Releases (6m) | 0 | 10 |
| Overall score | 0.2745414930782084 | 0.9294757830416892 |
Pros
- +High community adoption with 32,000+ GitHub stars indicating strong developer interest
- +Combines traditional code editing with AI coding agent capabilities in a single tool
- +Active community support through dedicated forum for user feedback and feature requests
Cons
- -Limited public documentation available about specific features and capabilities
- -Requires download and installation rather than being browser-based for immediate access
Use Cases
- •Developers looking to integrate AI assistance directly into their code editing workflow
- •Teams wanting to combine traditional IDE functionality with modern AI coding capabilities
- •Programmers seeking an AI-enhanced alternative to conventional code editors
FAQ
- Which is more popular, Cursor or omp?
- omp has more GitHub stars (34,159 vs 33,257).
- Which is more actively developed, Cursor or omp?
- omp had more commits in the last 90 days (14,033 vs 0).
- Should I use Cursor or omp?
- Compare their capabilities, limitations and "best for" notes above. Trying each on a small task is the fastest way to decide.