Bewertung
1,5
Mangelhaft · von 5 Sternen
Cursor Erfahrungen
1,5von 5 · Mangelhaft
Nicht beansprucht Beanspruchen Antwortet blitzschnell
Stimmen
100
100 in den letzten 12 Monaten
Softwareanbieter
8%
Anteil 5-Sterne-Bewertungen
Bewertungen (100)
100 in 12 MonatenIhre Stimme
Erfahrung zu Cursor schreiben
Daniel James
Verifizierte Bewertung
Cursor refused my refund despite 0% usage
have been a Pro+ subscriber and was recently charged automatically for another billing period. I was 100% certain I had already cancelled, but apparently the cancellation did not take effect before the renewal. As soon as I noticed the charge, I checked the account, cancelled it again and contacted Cursor to request a refund. The important point is that I have not used the subscription since the charge. My Cursor dashboard currently shows: Pro+ $60/month Cursor Models: 0% used Other Models: 0% used Grok Bot: 0% used On-demand spending: Disabled I therefore contacted support expecting this to be straightforward. Cursor's published refund policy says that Pro, Pro+ and Ultra follow the same refund rules, and that customers may qualify for a refund where the charge was made within 14 days and the subscription has not been used during that billing period. I appear to meet those criteria, yet Cursor support simply replied: "I'm not able to process a refund for your subscription as it doesn't meet our refund eligibility requirements." No explanation was given as to which eligibility requirement I supposedly fail to meet. I have now asked them to reconsider and explain the apparent discrepancy between their published refund policy and their refusal. As a UK customer, I also expect the applicable UK consumer protection requirements concerning fairness and transparency of consumer contracts to be taken seriously. I have deliberately contacted Cursor directly rather than immediately going through my bank or raising a payment dispute. I would prefer to resolve this reasonably with Cursor. However, if a company publishes refund criteria and then refuses a refund to a customer who appears to satisfy those criteria, without explaining why, that is extremely disappointing.
0
Kostiantyn Tsypko
Verifizierte Bewertung
I'm working world lead IT company
I'm working world lead IT company, used the agent to fix two linked Jira bugs but for some reason it is very poor performance at all. Disgusting experience. What went wrong: Over-scoped the task. It treated diagnostic data pasted in the ticket (specific API field values) as if they were requirements, invented "gaps," and pulled me into extra work the tickets never asked for. Flip-flopped on the core fix. It added a "gate" refinement, then had to walk it back after review caught a regression, then re-add, then remove again. Each swing implied another rebuild/re-test cycle. It should have reasoned this through once instead of churning. Too many amend/force-push rounds on the same commit, which made it hard to follow what the actual change was at any given moment. Communication got confusing. At several points I genuinely lost track of the state and what I was supposed to do next. Tooling limits. It could add Jira comments but not edit/delete them from its environment, and its sandbox couldn't reach internal hosts directly — so cleanup fell back on me, and an early duplicate/stale comment couldn't be fully removed without admin rights. The final fix was not correct and well-reasoned, with a poor root-cause analysis. Bottom line: weak performance not recommend at all
0
Nate M
Verifizierte Bewertung
Solid platform
Solid platform. I use it 12 hours a day. I prefer it over Claud, Open Ai, and others. Be careful with 3rd party models though. Those can get expensive. As a CTO, I spend between $500-$800 per month on credits. The output is equal to 10 full-time developers.
0
Benjamin J
Verifizierte Bewertung
Caution! Unethical practices and charging without permission.
The other day, I ran out of usage, and then I saw a notice about a discount on the yearly plan. So I said, "I wonder how much I'll really save and what it would cost me." I clicked on the button to get more information, and I was immediately charged. It did not give me any indicator on how much they would charge me. I requested a cancellation within thirty minutes, and the only reason it took me thirty minutes is that it's very hard to find their human support. And even though I requested it within 30 minutes, they would not refund my yearly payment and put me back on a monthly plan. Totally unacceptable. Definitely looking elsewhere, but now I'm stuck with a yearly plan that I don't want. It's very frustrating. If I had my entire team on there, it may have literally ruined my company. Fortunately, there were only two of us testing, so the bill is negligible but still totally unacceptable. After doing some more research, I realized that when you have the VC money that these guys have, you don't have to have customer support at all. Literally, just go back to the VCs and get unlimited money. Customer support and service are not even on this company's radar, so be very cautious. Overall, not quite as good as GitHub Copilot in Visual Studio Code anyways. But for me, the terrible support and unethical practices are a big disqualification for my company's use.
0
santosh ramrakhiani
Verifizierte Bewertung
Great development tool, but a very disappointing experience during a production incident
I have been using Cursor extensively for real CRM development and have completed a significant amount of development with it, including previously on the $20 and $60 plans. I upgraded to the Ultra plan because of the amount of development work we are doing. Unfortunately, my recent experience during a production incident was extremely disappointing. Our CRM suddenly became inaccessible to the entire team. During the investigation, Cursor's Agent took us deeply into an RLS/security diagnosis involving database policies, grants, permissions, repository analysis, repeated diagnostics and UAT. We relied on that direction because we were dealing with a live production outage. A substantial amount of my included Ultra usage was consumed during this investigation, and our development team lost approximately one full working day dealing with the issue instead of continuing planned development. The actual root cause ultimately turned out to be much simpler: our Supabase Nano instance was resource constrained/unhealthy. We upgraded from Nano to Micro, and the CRM immediately recovered. No RLS rollback was required. What was particularly frustrating was that the security/RLS investigation had consumed a significant amount of Cursor usage and our team's time, while the actual production issue was infrastructure capacity. I contacted Cursor Support and spent considerable time explaining the situation. To their credit, support reviewed the account and explained the usage figures in detail. However, despite acknowledging the production impact and the day of development time lost, Cursor ultimately refused to restore any of the consumed Ultra allowance or provide a $100 Ultra extension as a resolution. I understand that the Agent genuinely performed the work and that Cursor incurred model-provider costs. My concern is that a production incident was taken down an unnecessarily expensive diagnostic path, resulting in both substantial usage consumption and real business/developer time being lost. I was not asking for a refund of my subscription. I asked for a reasonable restoration of usage so I could continue using the Ultra plan I had already paid for. The support experience was professional, but the final resolution was disappointing. Cursor is a powerful development tool, and I have found real value in it. But when an AI-assisted production diagnosis goes significantly off track, I believe there should be a mechanism for reviewing exceptional cases where the customer suffers both substantial usage consumption and significant productivity loss. I hope Cursor considers improving this aspect of its customer support and incident-handling process.
0
Die Akte
Antwortet blitzschnell
Typische Antwortzeit unter 24 Stunden.
US
Alternativen zu Cursor
Softwareanbieter-Ranking →Häufige Fragen zu Cursor
Ist Cursor seriös?
Cursor erreicht aktuell 1,5 von 5 Sternen aus 100 unabhängigen Bewertungen — Gesamturteil „Mangelhaft“. Zur Einordnung: Unternehmenssitz: US. Alle Stimmen bleiben öffentlich: erfahrungen.app löscht keine Bewertungen gegen Geld.
Wie bewerten Kunden Cursor?
Kundinnen und Kunden bewerten Cursor im Schnitt mit 1,5 von 5 Sternen („Mangelhaft“) auf Basis von 100 Bewertungen. 100 davon stammen aus den letzten 12 Monaten.
Welche Alternativen zu Cursor gibt es?
Die bestbewerteten Anbieter in der Branche Softwareanbieter sind TotalAV (4,2 von 5), TeamViewer (4,8 von 5), Plugin Boutique (4,2 von 5). Das vollständige Ranking mit allen Anbietern finden Sie in der Branchenübersicht auf erfahrungen.app.
Ist das Profil von Cursor beansprucht?
Nein. Das Profil von Cursor ist öffentlich, aber nicht vom Unternehmen beansprucht. Deshalb kann Cursor hier nicht auf Bewertungen antworten. Die Firma kann das Profil kostenlos beanspruchen.
Antwortet Cursor auf Bewertungen?
Cursor: Antwortet blitzschnell. Typische Antwortzeit unter 24 Stunden.
Kann Cursor negative Bewertungen löschen lassen?
Nein. erfahrungen.app löscht, versteckt oder verkauft keine Bewertungen — auch nicht für verifizierte Unternehmen. Firmen können öffentlich antworten, aber Kritik bleibt stehen.
Wir löschen keine Bewertungen.
Auch nicht für Geld. Unclaimed ist fair. Claimed gibt das Mikrofon — nicht den Radiergummi.