Devin (Cognition AI) vs Cursor: AI Vendor Risk Comparison
Side-by-side risk comparison of Devin (Cognition AI) and Cursor across 8 dimensions: data handling, IP exposure, jurisdiction, security, regulatory compliance, transparency, business stability, and dependency chain.
Autonomous AI software engineer capable of executing end-to-end coding tasks, from research to deployment. Operates in a sandboxed environment with shell, editor, and browser access.
AI-native code editor forked from VS Code. Provides inline code completion, multi-file editing, and agentic coding workflows using Claude, GPT, and Gemini models with deep codebase context.
Risk dimensions side by side
Lower score = lower risk under TrustAtlas's default-balanced weight profile. The greener cell in each row is the lower-risk vendor for that dimension. How scoring works.
| Dimension | Devin (Cognition AI) | Cursor | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data Handling | 27.75 | 41.75 | Devin (Cognition AI) -14.0 |
| IP Exposure | 31 | 40 | Devin (Cognition AI) -9.0 |
| Jurisdiction | 12.5 | 12.5 | Tied |
| Security | 39.75 | 43.5 | Devin (Cognition AI) -3.8 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 60 | 60 | Tied |
| Transparency | 60 | 80 | Devin (Cognition AI) -20.0 |
| Business Stability | 41.25 | 51 | Devin (Cognition AI) -9.8 |
| Dependency Chain | 29.33 | 35.24 | Devin (Cognition AI) -5.9 |
Analyst summary
Devin (Cognition AI)
Cognition AI (maker of Devin and, post-July-2025, Windsurf) is one of the most aggressively scaling AI coding companies, with a $10.2B Founders Fund-led round in September 2025 and reports of $25B-valuation talks in early 2026. Compliance posture is appropriate for a young vendor: SOC 2 Type II since September 2024, ISO 27001:2022, dedicated-tenant deployment for Enterprise, and contractual no-training. HIPAA BAA and FedRAMP are not part of the program.
Solid for commercial code workloads with approved LLM data paths; track Windsurf integration and the funding trajectory carefully.
Cursor
Cursor (Anysphere) is a fast-moving AI-native code editor with strong privacy-mode defaults on Business plans and zero-retention contracts with upstream model providers. Its small company size and dependency on third-party LLM providers are the primary risk factors.
Strong choice for dev teams that value velocity and privacy-mode defaults; not yet a fit for heavily regulated buyers.
Recent incident activity
| Logged incidents | 0 | 0 |
Incident counts are cumulative across the platform's history. See each vendor's profile for severity breakdown and source links.