AI does not remove the need for someone who can tell whether the change is right. It does change how much of the boring path — files, tests, deploys, docs — one person can cover. The mistake we see is treating “we bought Copilot” as a delivery strategy, or treating an agent as a junior employee who does not need review.
This is how the three tools differ in actual project work, not in launch-week demos.
What each one is
| GitHub Copilot | Cursor | Grok Build | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where it lives | VS, VS Code, JetBrains, GitHub.com | Its own VS Code-based editor | A terminal UI (and headless / CI), on the repo |
| Default move | Inline completion and chat next to the file you have open | Chat and agent/composer across many files, still in an IDE | A task: read the tree, edit files, run commands, check the result |
| Needs a human at the keyboard | Yes, constantly — it suggests, you accept | Mostly — you steer in the editor | You assign work; it can go minutes without a keystroke |
| Runs the app, tests, git, cloud CLIs | Only if you type them, or via extra agent modes | Yes, in the integrated terminal / agent | Yes — that is the point |
| Best fit | Teams already in GitHub/Microsoft 365 who want speed in a familiar IDE | Developers who want an AI-native editor without leaving a GUI | End-to-end delivery on a real codebase: implement, verify, document |
GitHub Copilot
Copilot is the least disruptive. Completions appear as you type. Chat can explain a function or draft a test. Enterprise features sit next to the GitHub you already use for pull requests and (if you pay for it) Copilot code review.
Use it when the team will not change editors, identity is already Entra/GitHub, and the win you want is “every developer types less boilerplate.”
Do not expect it to own a multi-hour feature: migrate a database, stand up a second app, keep two codebases in sync, or argue with Azure until a pipeline is green. Copilot’s agent features are improving; they still assume a person is driving the IDE.
Cursor
Cursor is what Copilot feels like when the editor was designed around the model. Multi-file edits, @-mentions of folders, and an agent that will keep going through a list of files are the reasons people switch. If your developers live in VS Code keybindings, the landing is soft.
Use it when a small team wants one GUI for reading, editing, and asking for a refactor, and they are willing to standardize on Cursor instead of stock VS Code.
Watch for “the agent rewrote six files and I cannot reconstruct why.” That is the same risk as any agent. Cursor makes it easy to apply a large diff. Someone still has to read it. Also confirm licensing and data handling if you work in a tenant that cannot send code to a third-party model.
Grok Build
Grok Build is not an editor plugin. It is a terminal agent with the repository as workspace: it lists files, searches, edits, runs shells, uses browsers and cloud tools when they are connected, and reports what it did. That is closer to a very fast, very literal contractor than to autocomplete.
We use it for greenfield systems and for long-running work on existing ones — the sort of task where the next step is “run the app, look at the database, fix the PDF, commit.” Inline completion cannot do that loop. An IDE agent can start it. A TUI that is allowed to run commands can finish it, including the parts that are not code (SQL, pipeline YAML, a user-facing article).
Use it when the job is a project, not a function: new services, migrations, keeping two apps consistent, production checks. Pair it with git discipline (small commits, review the diff, do not let it push to production because the prompt was excited).
It will not replace an architect or an owner who knows the business rule. If you cannot describe “cash basis means we do not post AR,” you will get a general ledger that looks like a tutorial.
How we choose on a given week
- Typing a Razor page I already understand: Copilot or Cursor completions. Faster than prompting an agent for ten lines.
- A bounded refactor in one solution, developer watching: Cursor agent, then a human diff.
- Stand up or extend a production system, touch database, deploy, write the operator notes: Grok Build, with the owner still responsible for “should this exist.”
- Regulated or secret code that cannot leave the building: none of these until the contract and tenancy match. Tools are not a substitute for a data-handling decision.
The productivity story that holds up is not “AI wrote the app.” It is “a senior person spent their time on the parts that require judgment, and did not spend a week on the glue.” That only works if you review the glue. Copilot hides the glue in tab-completions. Cursor and Grok Build show it as diffs. Prefer the diffs.
What to ask a vendor (including us)
- Which tool ran, and who reviewed the change before it hit main?
- Can they show the test or the browser check, not only the generated file?
- If the model vanished tomorrow, can a human still maintain the repo?
We will use whichever of these is the right instrument for the work. If you want software built that way — and maintained after the demo — talk to us. If you want a custom operations app rather than an AI workshop, the books example is the better starting point.