Supermaven ranks higher at 71/100 vs Has Cursor always used Composer 2 for subagents? at 27/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | Has Cursor always used Composer 2 for subagents? | Supermaven |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Agent | Extension |
| UnfragileRank | 27/100 | 71/100 |
| Adoption |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Quality | 0 | 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Starting Price | — | $10/mo |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Cursor's subagent system delegates complex coding tasks to specialized Composer 2 instances that operate as independent agents within a parent task context. Each subagent maintains its own conversation state, receives task-specific prompts, and returns structured code artifacts back to the parent agent for integration. The architecture uses a hierarchical agent pattern where the main Cursor agent orchestrates subagent spawning, context passing, and result aggregation without requiring manual prompt engineering for each delegation.
Unique: Uses Composer 2 as the underlying execution engine for subagents rather than spawning lightweight task runners, enabling each subagent to inherit Cursor's full code understanding capabilities (codebase indexing, symbol resolution, multi-file context awareness) without reimplementation
vs alternatives: More capable than function-calling-based agent delegation because subagents retain access to Cursor's IDE-integrated codebase analysis and can generate code with full semantic awareness of existing project structure
When a user requests a complex coding task, Cursor's agent layer analyzes the request and automatically decomposes it into subtasks, each assigned to a Composer 2 subagent with relevant context extracted from the codebase. Context propagation includes file dependencies, import graphs, type definitions, and architectural patterns inferred from existing code. The parent agent maintains a task dependency graph to sequence subagent execution and merge results in topological order.
Unique: Integrates static codebase analysis (import graphs, type inference) directly into task decomposition logic, allowing subagents to receive pre-filtered context rather than raw file listings, reducing token overhead and improving code coherence
vs alternatives: More intelligent than generic agent frameworks because decomposition is informed by actual codebase structure rather than heuristics alone, reducing the chance of generating code that violates existing architectural constraints
Subagents generate code using Cursor's Composer 2 interface, which produces structured code artifacts with metadata (file path, language, dependencies, change type). The parent agent collects these artifacts and applies a merge strategy that handles conflicts (overlapping edits, import collisions, type mismatches) by consulting the codebase index and re-running generation if necessary. Merging preserves formatting, respects existing code style, and maintains referential integrity across generated modules.
Unique: Leverages Composer 2's native artifact format (which includes metadata like file path, language, and change type) to implement intelligent merging that understands code structure rather than treating generated code as plain text diffs
vs alternatives: More robust than naive text-based merging because it can detect semantic conflicts (e.g., two subagents adding different implementations of the same function) and resolve them by re-running generation with conflict context
Before spawning a subagent, Cursor analyzes the task and injects relevant codebase context (file snippets, type signatures, architectural patterns, existing implementations of similar features) into the subagent's system prompt. This context is extracted via static analysis of imports, symbol tables, and semantic search over the codebase index. The injection is selective — only context relevant to the task is included to avoid exceeding token limits while maintaining semantic coherence.
Unique: Performs multi-stage context selection: first filters by import graph and symbol references, then applies semantic similarity ranking to identify the most relevant code snippets, ensuring injected context is both syntactically and semantically coherent
vs alternatives: More precise than RAG-based approaches because it combines structural analysis (imports, types) with semantic search, reducing the chance of injecting irrelevant code that confuses the subagent
Cursor maintains a task dependency graph and schedules subagent execution in topological order, ensuring that subagents with dependencies on other subagents' outputs wait for those outputs before executing. The orchestrator handles resource constraints (API rate limits, concurrent request limits) by queuing subagents and executing them in batches. Progress is tracked and reported back to the user, with the ability to cancel or retry failed subagents.
Unique: Integrates dependency analysis directly into the orchestration layer, allowing dynamic adjustment of execution strategy based on actual subagent completion times and API quota consumption rather than static scheduling
vs alternatives: More efficient than naive parallel execution because it respects task dependencies and API constraints, avoiding wasted API calls and ensuring subagents have required inputs before execution
Generates single-line and multi-line code suggestions in real-time as developers type, using semantic indexing of the entire codebase to retrieve relevant type definitions, function signatures, and contextual patterns. The system maintains a 1M token context window (Pro/Team tiers) that enables suggestions informed by distant code definitions and cross-file dependencies, constructed via local codebase semantic search rather than simple token-based recency. Suggestions adapt to detected coding style on Pro/Team tiers through implicit pattern learning from recent edits.
Unique: 1M token context window with codebase-wide semantic indexing enables suggestions informed by distant code definitions and cross-file patterns, versus competitors (Copilot, Tabnine) that typically use fixed context windows (4K-32K tokens) or file-local context. Claimed 250ms latency suggests optimized retrieval pipeline, though indexing mechanism and performance at scale remain undisclosed.
vs alternatives: Larger context window than GitHub Copilot (8K-32K tokens) and faster latency than unnamed competitors (250ms vs 783ms claimed), enabling suggestions on large codebases with minimal typing delay; trade-off is cloud dependency and undisclosed free tier limitations.
Provides a separate chat interface supporting multiple LLM backends (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4, others) for conversational code assistance. Users attach files, reference recent edits, and trigger compiler diagnostic uploads; the system generates diffs and applies code changes directly to the editor. Model selection is per-conversation, and $5/month in credits (included in Pro/Team) covers external model API costs; overage pricing is undisclosed. Hotkey-driven workflow enables rapid context switching between inline completion and chat.
Unique: Multi-model chat interface with per-conversation model selection and integrated diff application, combined with compiler diagnostic auto-upload. Unlike Copilot Chat (single model per tier) or standalone ChatGPT, Supermaven Chat unifies multiple LLM backends in a single hotkey-driven workflow with direct editor integration for change application.
Supermaven scores higher at 71/100 vs Has Cursor always used Composer 2 for subagents? at 27/100. Has Cursor always used Composer 2 for subagents? leads on ecosystem, while Supermaven is stronger on adoption and quality. Supermaven also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: Supports multiple LLM backends (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet) in one interface with included credits, whereas GitHub Copilot Chat is single-model per tier and requires separate ChatGPT subscription for model switching; trade-off is credit limits and unknown overage pricing.
Supermaven Chat can automatically upload compiler diagnostic messages (errors, warnings) alongside code context to provide error-aware suggestions and fixes. The mechanism is described as 'automatically uploading your code together with compiler diagnostic messages,' but specific language/compiler support and the upload trigger mechanism are undisclosed. This feature is Chat-only and not available in inline completion.
Unique: Automatic compiler diagnostic upload in Chat for error-aware suggestions, versus competitors (Copilot, Tabnine) that require manual error context or have limited diagnostic integration. Supermaven's approach reduces friction but with undisclosed language/compiler support.
vs alternatives: Automatic diagnostic upload reduces manual context-gathering compared to manual copy-paste; trade-off is undisclosed language support and unclear upload trigger mechanism.
Supermaven offers a 30-day free trial of the Pro tier ($10/month), providing full access to 1M token context window, largest model, style adaptation, and $5/month chat credits. No credit card is required to start the trial (implied), and trial conversion to paid is automatic after 30 days unless cancelled. Trial terms and auto-renewal policy are not explicitly detailed.
Unique: 30-day free trial of Pro tier with full feature access (1M context, largest model, chat credits), versus competitors (Copilot 2-month free trial, Tabnine free tier only) with different trial lengths and feature access. Supermaven's approach is generous but with undisclosed auto-renewal terms.
vs alternatives: Full Pro feature access during trial compared to limited free tier; trade-off is undisclosed auto-renewal policy and potential unexpected charges if not cancelled.
Supermaven requires internet connectivity and server-side inference; no offline mode or local inference capability is mentioned or available. All code completion requests are sent to Supermaven's backend servers for processing, and responses are returned over the network. This creates a hard dependency on network connectivity and Supermaven's service availability; if the service is down or network is unavailable, code completion is not available.
Unique: Supermaven has no offline mode or local inference capability; all processing is server-side. GitHub Copilot also requires server-side inference, but Tabnine offers local inference options for some use cases. Supermaven's lack of offline capability is a significant limitation for developers with connectivity constraints.
vs alternatives: Supermaven's server-side-only approach is comparable to GitHub Copilot; Tabnine offers local inference options, making Tabnine more suitable for offline work. Supermaven's lack of offline capability is a weakness vs. Tabnine.
Analyzes recent code edits and inferred coding patterns to adapt inline suggestions to match team conventions, naming patterns, and structural preferences. The mechanism is implicit (not explicit fine-tuning) and operates only on Pro/Team tiers, suggesting pattern learning from editor activity rather than explicit configuration. Free tier uses a single base model without personalization.
Unique: Implicit style adaptation via editor activity analysis without explicit configuration, versus competitors (Copilot, Tabnine) that require manual style guides or explicit fine-tuning. Supermaven's approach is transparent to the user but also non-configurable and undisclosed in mechanism.
vs alternatives: Requires no manual style configuration compared to tools requiring explicit style guides; trade-off is lack of transparency and inability to control or export learned styles.
Delivers code suggestions to the editor inline as the developer types, with a claimed baseline latency of 250ms from keystroke to suggestion display. The system uses a cloud inference backend and local editor plugin to minimize round-trip time. Latency claim is positioned against an unnamed competitor (783ms), but methodology is undisclosed and no independent verification is provided.
Unique: Claimed 250ms latency via optimized cloud inference pipeline and editor plugin architecture, versus competitors with higher latency (783ms unnamed baseline). Actual differentiation is undisclosed; mechanism may involve request batching, model quantization, or edge caching, but specifics are not public.
vs alternatives: Faster than unnamed competitor (250ms vs 783ms claimed); trade-off is cloud dependency and unverified latency claim with no SLA or performance guarantee.
Provides native editor extensions for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs (IntelliJ IDEA, PyCharm, WebStorm, etc.), and Neovim, enabling inline suggestion rendering, hotkey-driven chat access, and compiler diagnostic integration directly within the editor. Each plugin variant is maintained separately and integrates with the editor's native autocomplete UI, keybinding system, and file context APIs.
Unique: Native plugins for three major editor ecosystems (VS Code, JetBrains, Neovim) with integrated chat and diff application, versus competitors (Copilot, Tabnine) that support broader editor ecosystems but with less deep integration in some cases. Supermaven's approach prioritizes depth over breadth.
vs alternatives: Deep integration with VS Code and JetBrains (native autocomplete UI, hotkey system) compared to web-based tools or lighter integrations; trade-off is limited editor support (no Sublime, Vim, Emacs) and undisclosed Neovim support details.
+5 more capabilities