Poly vs Cursor for a team working with one AI agent

Cursor and Poly both let more than one person work with an AI coding agent, from different starting points. Cursor is an AI code editor whose cloud agents run in isolated VMs; a run can be shared by link with teammates on the same Cursor team, and if an admin turns on team follow-ups, teammates can send it instructions, which run under the creator's credentials. Poly (usepoly.co) is a browser room built around one AI: every member prompts in one timeline, approves each change before it happens, and gets a receipt naming who ran each turn and what it cost. Cursor is for engineering teams that live in an editor and hand work to background agents. Poly is for a small group, including people who don't code, steering one agent together.

What Cursor does

Cursor, from Anysphere, is a code editor with an agent built in. Its cloud agents run in isolated VMs and can be started from the desktop app, the web, iOS, Slack, Linear, pull-request comments or the API. A run can be shared by URL: teammates on the same Cursor team, with their own access to the repository, see the conversation, the code changes and the artifacts. Viewing is read-only unless an admin enables team follow-ups, which can let any team member send follow-ups to any agent; those follow-ups run with the creator's credentials and secrets. Projects, in beta since September 2026, lets a coordinator agent split work across sub-agents. Models include Cursor's own Composer, Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok, Kimi, Muse and GLM.

Where Cursor is stronger

• An editor. If your engineers want to write code next to the agent, Cursor is a full IDE. Poly has no editor.
• Start an agent from anywhere. Desktop, web, phone, Slack, Linear, pull-request comments or the API.
• Scale. Many cloud agents in parallel, Projects with sub-agents, self-hosted machines and team pools.
• Review tooling. Built-in code review and security review on Teams and Enterprise.

Where Poly is stronger

• A say before it acts. Cursor's cloud agents open pull requests, and its docs describe no approval before edits. In Poly every proposed change can wait for any member's approval, in plain language, on every member's screen.
• Each person under their own name. A Cursor follow-up runs as the agent's creator. In Poly every prompt and approval names who gave it, and each turn is charged to the person who ran it, with a receipt.
• No seat needed to take part. Steering a Cursor run takes a seat on the Cursor team, access to the repository and an admin setting. In Poly anyone invited to the room can watch, chat and approve for free.
• Built for people who don't code. Poly's surface is a timeline, cards and a live preview of the app.
• A chat the AI can't read. Poly's group chat, threads and polls are hidden from the agent.
• Claude Code and Codex. Poly runs Anthropic's and OpenAI's own agent harnesses. Cursor runs its own agent.

Pricing, side by side

Cursor: Hobby free; Pro $20, Pro+ $60 and Ultra $200 a month; Teams $40 per user a month, Teams Premium $120; cloud agents are charged at API pricing for the selected model (pricing). Poly: free to start; $20 or $50 a month for each person who runs the AI, and everyone else in the room is free. A five-person team where two people prompt pays Poly $40 a month; five Cursor Teams seats are $200 before usage.

Which should you pick?

• Engineers who want an AI editor, and background agents they can start from Slack, Linear or a pull request: Cursor.
• A team that wants many agents running in parallel on separate tasks: Cursor.
• A small group, including people who don't code, steering one agent together, approving each change and seeing who spent what: Poly.
• You want Claude Code and Codex in one room without anyone holding a subscription: Poly.

Teams use both: Cursor for one engineer's work in the editor, Poly for the work a group steers together. More options are in Multiplayer AI tools.