"Which AI coding tool should I use?" is the wrong question.
I've burned through $50+/month on AI subscriptions for over a year now. Claude Pro. Cursor Pro. GitHub Copilot. Even ran local LLMs on my M1 Max when I didn't trust cloud providers with client code.
The real question isn't which one to pick. It's which one to reach for in each situation. Because trying to force Cursor to do what Claude Code does best, or expecting Copilot to handle complex refactors, is just making your life harder.
The Four Tools (And Their Actual Philosophies)
Claude Code is a terminal-first agent. It lives in your shell, sees your file tree, and can run commands. It's built for complex multi-step tasks where you need something to read 10 files, modify 5, run tests, and adjust based on failures. The MCP (Model Context Protocol) support means it can control browsers, fetch docs, and integrate with local tools.
Cursor is VS Code with AI that actually understands your codebase. It indexes your files and gives you GPT-4 or Claude chat directly in the editor. Best for exploratory work when you're asking "where does this function get called?" or "why is this hook re-rendering?"
GitHub Copilot is still the autocomplete king. It predicts what you're typing next, usually correctly. The tab-tab-tab flow for writing boilerplate is unmatched. It's not trying to be your pair programmer - it's trying to save you from typing the same useState pattern for the 500th time.
LM Studio is local, free, and private. You download models (Llama, Mistral, etc.) and run them on your machine. Slower than cloud tools. No fancy integrations. But your code never touches someone else's server, it works on planes, and it costs zero dollars ongoing.
When I Reach for Claude Code
Complex refactors where I need to touch 5+ files. Yesterday I asked it to migrate my Next.js blog from runtime MDX parsing to build-time JSON generation. It:
- Modified the content loading logic
- Updated the blog page component
- Created a build script to generate JSON
- Updated package.json scripts
- Tested the build locally
I gave it one prompt. It executed 15 file operations and ran validation commands. That's what terminal-based agents excel at - multi-step workflows where each step depends on the previous one succeeding.
I also use Claude Code when I need MCP integrations. The Playwright MCP lets it automate browser testing. The Context7 MCP pulls latest docs for frameworks. The Next.js DevTools MCP reads my dev server errors directly.
Cursor can't do this. Copilot definitely can't. Claude Code's terminal access and MCP ecosystem make it the only real option for these workflows.
Downside: It requires Claude Pro ($20/mo) or Claude Max ($100/mo) subscription, or API credits. No free tier. And if you mess up the initial prompt, you're watching it make wrong edits across multiple files before you can course-correct.
When I Reach for Cursor
Exploring codebases I didn't write. I'm in a 50k+ line Next.js monorepo and need to understand how auth flows work. Cursor's Ctrl+K lets me select files, ask questions, and get answers grounded in actual code.
I also use Cursor when I want chat but don't want to leave my editor. It's fast, the context is automatic (it sees your open files), and Claude or GPT-4 responses stream directly in the sidebar.
For rapid iteration - make change, ask AI to review, adjust, repeat - Cursor's inline chat beats copying code into ChatGPT. The feedback loop is tighter.
Downside: It's a VS Code fork. If you use Vim, Emacs, or JetBrains IDEs, you're switching editors or giving up Cursor. The Pro plan is $20/month and limits how many slow/fast model requests you get. I've hit the limit during heavy refactor days.
When I Reach for Copilot
Writing boilerplate. React components. API routes. TypeScript interfaces. Anything where the pattern is obvious and I'm just translating intent into syntax.
Copilot's autocomplete flow is unmatched: type the function name, tab to accept the signature, tab to accept the body, done. No chat needed. No waiting for a model to think. It predicts, you accept, you move on.
I also keep Copilot active when using Claude Code or Cursor. They handle complex tasks; Copilot handles the "I need to import this but don't want to type the full path" micro-moments.
Downside: It's not smart enough for architecture decisions or complex logic. It hallucinates APIs that don't exist. It auto-completes confidently wrong code. You need to read what it suggests. The GitHub requirement also means your code metadata goes to Microsoft (anonymized, but still).
When I Still Use LM Studio
Client projects under NDA. I literally cannot send their code to Anthropic or OpenAI without violating agreements. LM Studio + a local Mistral or Llama model lets me get AI assistance without uploading anything.
Working offline. Flights. Coffee shops with bad wifi. My machine, my models, my code. Cloud tools are useless here.
Cost-sensitive personal projects. If I'm building a hobby app and don't want to pay $50/month in AI subscriptions, LM Studio is free. I download a 7B parameter model, run it locally, and get decent (if slower) assistance.
Downside: It's slow. A response that takes Claude 3 seconds takes Llama on my M1 Max 30+ seconds. The quality is worse - local models aren't as smart as frontier cloud models. And you need a beefy machine (16GB+ RAM for decent performance).
Check out my full LM Studio setup guide if you want to run local LLMs for private or offline development.
The Honest Downsides
Claude Code:
- Expensive ($20-100/mo subscription or API usage)
- Terminal-only means no GUI editor integration
- Can spiral into wrong edits if initial prompt is unclear
- MCP ecosystem is still immature
Cursor:
- Forces you into their VS Code fork (vendor lock-in)
- $20/month Pro plan has usage caps that bite during heavy use
- Codebase indexing can be slow on huge monorepos
- Free tier is limited enough to be frustrating
GitHub Copilot:
- Autocomplete only - no complex reasoning or refactoring
- Hallucinates APIs and patterns confidently
- Owned by Microsoft (if that matters to you)
- Individual plan is $10/mo, Business is $19/mo (more cost)
LM Studio:
- Slow compared to cloud models
- Lower quality responses than frontier models
- Requires powerful local hardware (16GB+ RAM)
- No cloud features like web search or real-time docs
My Actual Daily Workflow
Morning: Open Cursor. Scan overnight changes. Ask it "what did this PR change and why?" to catch up on team work.
Development: Copilot handles autocomplete. When I need to refactor something complex (moving components, updating types across files), I switch to Claude Code in terminal.
Research: Need latest Next.js 15 patterns? Claude Code with MCP docs integration. Need to understand how a specific function works in this codebase? Cursor chat.
Client work: LM Studio only. Download Mistral 7B, use it for code review and simple refactors. Slower, but I'm not risking NDA violations.
Late night personal projects: Free Copilot (GitHub student/teacher accounts get it free) + LM Studio. Zero monthly cost, decent quality, no guilt about burning subscription credits.
Cost Breakdown
| Tool | Monthly Cost | What You Get | |------|-------------|--------------| | Claude Code | $20 (Pro) or $100 (Max) | Terminal agent + MCP integrations, higher usage limits on Max | | Cursor | $20 (Pro) | AI-powered VS Code fork, codebase indexing, limited fast requests | | GitHub Copilot | $10 (Individual) or $19 (Business) | Autocomplete in any editor, chat interface | | LM Studio | $0 | Local models, unlimited usage, privacy, offline capability |
Full Stack: $50/month (Claude Pro + Cursor Pro + Copilot) Budget Stack: $10/month (Copilot only) + LM Studio free Privacy Stack: $0/month (LM Studio only, or Copilot if you already have GitHub access)
Honestly? I pay the $50. I'm building 30+ projects and working on a master's degree. The time saved is worth more than the cost. But if I were a student without income, I'd use Copilot + LM Studio and be fine.
The Bottom Line
Different tools for different jobs. Claude Code owns complex terminal workflows and MCP-powered integrations. Cursor dominates in-editor exploration and codebase questions. Copilot is still the autocomplete king. LM Studio covers privacy and offline needs.
Trying to use just one is like using only a hammer because you don't want to carry a screwdriver. It works until you hit a screw.
I use all three cloud tools daily. I keep LM Studio ready for sensitive work. The combined workflow is faster than forcing any single tool to do everything.
Your mileage will vary based on what you build. If you're writing simple scripts, Copilot alone is fine. If you're refactoring production codebases, you need Claude Code or Cursor. If you're under NDAs or traveling constantly, you need LM Studio.
Pick your poison based on your actual workflow, not what YouTube influencers say is "best." Test each tool for a month. Track which one you actually reach for in different situations. Then pay for what you use and ignore the rest.
That's it. No magic answer. Just different tools that happen to be good at different things.