Best AI code editors for 2027

Cursor gets the important thing right: AI belongs in the editing flow, not in a separate window you visit when ordinary coding gives up. It is a full editor based on VS Code, so settings, keybindings, and much of the extension ecosystem feel familiar. Accept a predicted edit, give the agent some context, inspect the diff, and take the keyboard back. No ceremony required.

The agent searches the repository, edits files, runs commands, and can use a browser to check an application. You can stop it mid-task, redirect it, or restore a local checkpoint when its bright idea turns dim. One Discourse developer called Tab the best autocomplete they had used, then said it was the feature they missed after moving to VS Code. That account speaks specifically to Tab’s predictions; the agent’s diff review and checkpoints are separate features to evaluate.

The fixed-settings lineup includes Grok 4.7, Grok 4.6, Grok 4.5, and Composer 2.5. Plus costs $8 a month with those models at fixed settings; Premium costs $30 and adds third-party models, cloud agents, and other features. Claude, GPT, and Gemini are charged at API list prices from the first request, on top of Premium. One weekly allowance covers Cursor’s editor, CLI, and cloud agents, as well as Grok Bot and the separate Grok apps.

The result is my favorite hands-on AI workflow, with an invoice that needs its own review. Choose it for the editing experience, not as a cheap way to rent Claude. Its VS Code-derived base can also use more resources than a lean native editor. For proprietary code, enable Privacy Mode: without it, you don’t get Cursor’s guarantee that neither Cursor nor its model providers will train on your code.

When your current setup already works, Visual Studio Code is the sensible answer. It covers polyglot projects, remote containers, and an enormous extension catalog. Replacing it for a shinier agent can mean fixing problems you didn’t have yesterday.

Copilot, Claude Code, and Codex can now run inside VS Code. Each comes with a harness: the software layer that coordinates the agent, its tools, and its review controls. You can choose models from several providers, connect your own endpoint, or run a supported local model. That makes VS Code the practical host when the best agent changes with the task.

The catch is that “VS Code with agents” describes several experiences, not one. Copilot tracks supported edits in a working set, where you can keep or undo individual changes. Claude and Codex sessions use diff comparison instead. Terminal commands and scripts can also change files outside the special review list, so Source Control remains your friend. The Agents window supports parallel sessions and inline feedback without taking away the normal editing, debugging, and testing tools.

The editor itself is free. Copilot Free includes 2,000 completions a month, and Copilot Pro costs $10, with unlimited completions and a separate agent allowance. Other agents have their own subscriptions or provider bills. Individual GitHub accounts can use your inputs and outputs for training until you opt out; business plans offer central policy and usage controls. VS Code rewards a little assembly, but it won’t assemble itself.

For a large JVM codebase, IntelliJ IDEA is the serious choice. Its navigation, refactoring, inspections, debugger, and framework support understand your code instead of treating it as a pile of text files. JetBrains Air adds agent sessions without asking you to trade that environment for a VS Code fork.

Air supports Junie, Claude Agent, Codex, and other connected agents. You can open their diffs in the IDE, comment on a line for the agent, then use the debugger, tests, profiler, and database tools to verify the result. That is a satisfying place to catch an agent’s confident mistake. Cursor has stronger support for its interactive assistance; an external agent’s reputation belongs to that agent, not to IntelliJ itself.

Existing provider subscriptions and API keys offer considerable flexibility, including custom endpoints. JetBrains says it does not train on your inputs or outputs without your agreement. Its organizational governance adds model, permission, and spending controls. The price is indexing and resource overhead, while the deepest benefits are concentrated in JVM work. Other JetBrains IDEs serve other language families with their own feature and AI eligibility rules.

Read the plan details before buying. The core Java and Kotlin editor is free, but JetBrains’ managed AI plans require an eligible commercial IDE subscription. For this IntelliJ configuration, that means Ultimate at $719 per user a year, plus AI Pro at $100 for 10 monthly AI credits or AI Ultimate at $300 for 35. Connecting a supported provider directly avoids JetBrains AI credit consumption, but the free editor is not a free managed agent in disguise.

Zed is the editor for people who notice latency. It is an open-source, native application written in Rust, with responsive editing, modern debugging, and real-time collaboration. AI is available without turning the screen into an agent dashboard. It does not inherit VS Code’s layout or extension catalog.

Its native AI covers both small and large work. Zeta predicts your next edit, the inline assistant changes a selection, and the agent can inspect a repository and edit files. You can accept or reject individual change hunks in an editable diff, control tool permissions, and isolate an agent in a separate Git worktree. External agents such as Claude Agent, Codex, and OpenCode connect through the Agent Client Protocol (ACP), a standard for using an outside coding agent inside Zed.

Provider freedom is the other reason to pick it. Use Zed-hosted models, an existing provider subscription, your own API keys, a gateway, or a local model. Personal is free with your own keys or external agents. Pro costs $10 a month with unlimited hosted edit predictions and $5 of tokens; further hosted usage costs API list price plus 10%. Zeta itself requires a paid or eligible plan, while other prediction providers can be used on Personal.

Check your extensions before switching. Zed’s catalog is much smaller than VS Code’s, particularly for niche languages and enterprise tools. Zed’s native agent is a separate consideration from its responsive editor; test it on representative work in your own repositories. Prompt sharing and edit-prediction training are opt-in, and direct-provider requests bypass Zed’s servers. Business administrators can lock data-sharing settings, but SSO, SAML, SCIM, and SOC 2 compliance are not currently available.

In Kiro IDE, the agent reads the requirements before touching the code. It is a complete desktop IDE based on Code OSS, with familiar VS Code settings and Open VSX extensions. You write requirements and design decisions, Kiro turns them into tasks, and you verify the completed work. Less “vibes,” more paperwork, in a good way.

A full spec produces requirements, design, and task files in the repository. You can review those documents, run independent tasks in parallel, and use property-based tests to check the implementation against stated behavior. Quick sessions and quick specs are available for smaller changes, so the full process is not mandatory. That structure helps when requirements are ambiguous; it is overkill for a typo.

The model menu spans OpenAI, Anthropic, and open-weight models. Free includes 50 monthly credits, and Pro costs $20 a month with 1,000. Each prompt consumes credits according to its work and model, so refining a specification costs both time and credits.

By default, Kiro collects content from Free users and individual subscribers, including prompts, responses, and generated code. You can opt out in the IDE; enterprise content is not used for service improvement. Kiro is a strong specialist for teams that value documented intent, but Cursor and VS Code are easier general choices for exploratory coding.

Devin Desktop puts supervision of several coding agents ahead of manual typing. It is the current name for Windsurf, and the complete VS Code-derived editor, extensions, keybindings, and language tooling remain. The Agent Command Center now arrives before the traditional editor, like a project manager who got to the office before you did.

Local and cloud sessions share a supervision interface, with worktrees for isolated tasks and an independent Quick Review agent for checking changes. Permissions cover file access, commands, web requests, and connected tools. Support for the Agent Client Protocol also lets compatible third-party agents work in the same environment, which is useful if you do not want every task tied to Devin’s own agent.

Free includes unlimited inline edits and Tab completions plus a light agent allowance. Pro costs $20 a month with broader model access and cloud agents, but daily and weekly agent quotas vary with the task. Extra usage is billed at API prices.

That command center is the reason to choose it and the reason to avoid it. A solo developer looking for a calm editor must first dismiss a management board built for several workstreams. Devin Local also has a shorter track record than the previous Cascade agent, so older Windsurf praise is not a reliable verdict on today’s experience. Individual data can be used for training by default; paid users must opt out to stop training and enable zero retention with providers.

Google Antigravity tempts with a complete IDE, recurring AI access, and browser-based agent verification. The relevant product here is the Antigravity IDE, not the separate command-center app, CLI, or extensions for other editors. Its Editor view supplies Tab completions, natural-language commands, and direct file editing on macOS, Windows, and Linux.

The agent can work across the editor, terminal, and browser. Artifacts summarize its plans and verification results, and you can comment on them to redirect the work. That is especially useful for front-end changes, where the agent can inspect the running page rather than merely declaring the button fixed.

Free includes unlimited Tab completions and Command requests plus a basic weekly agent allowance. Google AI Pro costs $19.99 a month for higher limits and a flexible credit pool. Model access is a curated list of Gemini and partner models, without the local-model or custom-provider freedom of Zed or VS Code.

The review loop is the catch. Users have reported that an IDE update batched changes until the end of a task and made edited files harder to track. Google provides keyboard shortcuts for reviewing changes inline and a side-by-side diff view, but that doesn’t erase the disruption those users described. Unless you change the setting, Google can use your interactions to improve its products and models, and human reviewers can examine them. For a free experiment, Antigravity is attractive; for a critical daily workflow, first test its review controls and adjust the data-use setting if your code requires it.