I used Windsurf for about three months. Once our Cursor license expired, we were given Windsurf to use.

I used Windsurf to generate test cases and update my test cases in Jira. I made an MCP connection with Windsurf and Atlassian Jira so that I could make test cases there, update them, and update the statuses. My second use case was to execute those test cases by using Playwright MCP and browser execution. My third use case was to write the automation of those test cases from Windsurf.

The process was smooth. I would copy-paste my test case into the chat option and tell Windsurf to write the automated test case for it. I would also give Windsurf the XPath, the browser name, and the credentials. I would write the detailed steps for my test case and Windsurf would write the test cases very smoothly.

I am using Windsurf for these three use cases: making the test case, automating them, and executing them.

Windsurf is very similar to Cursor. The feature I admired the most was its integrating capabilities. It can be integrated with Playwright MCP and Atlassian MCP very easily. The user interface was smooth and I really appreciate the types of themes they provided. There was also auto-complete functionality in Windsurf which helped me a lot. Windsurf gave a concise conclusion of what it did, the steps it took, and the conclusion of it. Instead of reading all the chat, I could rely on the conclusion part which is small, crisp, and very nice.

The auto-complete functionality helped me complete sentences automatically. It gets the instinct of what I am going to write and does that in a very smooth manner. A lot of times Windsurf hallucinates and completes it in a wrong way, but overall I like this functionality. In about 70% of the cases, it thinks the right thing that I was also thinking.

We were able to complete our deadlines and meet them before the scheduled time. If a project was for 15 days, we could complete the same project in 10 days by using Windsurf to automate the test cases, execute them, and make those test cases. Meeting the deadlines became really easy. It also automated a lot of our manual tasks.

Windsurf helps me fix flaky cases very easily. I would run my test case and it would start executing. Whenever there was an issue or the test case was failing, it would identify that place and Windsurf would fix it on its own.

Windsurf can be improved by increasing the context awareness. It sometimes loses context across files. If it had better repo-wide understanding and smarter navigation across test suites, APIs, and services, that would be great. Debugging and failure analysis is another area for improvement. Windsurf helped in writing the code but debugging is still a weak point. Stability is also something that should be improved. Most AI tools hallucinate and Windsurf also hallucinates. When it is given a larger amount of data, it hallucinates a lot and gives syntactically correct but logically wrong code sometimes.

I have been working here for the last 3.5 years in the same field of testing.

Windsurf is quite stable, but it is a little slower than Cursor.

Currently, one license is given to three users and we use those licenses very much. I haven't seen it slowing. Windsurf runs at its own pace, but we haven't tested it in a scalable manner. I haven't tested what would happen if one license were given to nine people. With one license for three people, it was going smooth.

I haven't had a chance to talk to customer support because I haven't had any sort of issue using Windsurf.

Previously, we were using Cursor but it was really costly, so our team moved to Windsurf.

Time saved is very evident. Because time has been saved, if I am completing a task in five days rather than ten days, I can pick another task in the remaining five days. The product team can now delve into many more features based on the feature flags and test them a lot. Previously, we would test one feature. Now, we can also experiment. For one feature we can have two builds and test them on the same timeline. This helps us choose better.

I wasn't given the opportunity to choose because these things were just given to us by my managers. I was not given a chance to explore other options.

I want to tell people that they should start using an AI-assisted IDE, whether it is Windsurf or Cursor. Windsurf is better because the price difference is really huge. Windsurf always provides a boilerplate for writing the code and test cases. As testers and automation testers, we can refrain from doing repetitive work. If one is really good with prompts, then they can have really good results. Prompts should be explicit and provide clear context around the use case. Always review your test cases and automation scripts before merging them because a review is a non-negotiable thing in AI tools. I would rate this review a 7 out of 10.

I have mainly used Windsurf for testing purposes. I started using it when it became popular, especially before it was called Windsurf, when it was called Codium. I have used both the editor and the autocomplete service.

I experimented with how they handle the topic and how they implement the AI flow in the same way as other AI-based editors. I mainly wanted to see what their different proposal was, and I developed a couple of projects specifically to test this.

The last project I developed was an editorial-style landing page using Astro, which did not have interactivity; however, they were components with a lot of dynamism and a lot of logic between animations and user-triggered flows.

For my main workflow, I do React Native development, and my main hurdle in using this editor, which is not strictly Windsurf's fault, is the performance issue. Since React Native, along with all the tools I need to keep running at the same time, consumes a lot of resources. The editor becomes one more competitor for my system resources, and this harms me a lot in performance, especially regarding RAM. I know this is not directly Windsurf's fault; it is the fault of what it is based on. But this is one of my major impediments when it comes to using an editor based on Visual Studio, which is Windsurf's case, and with which I had problems when developing in React Native.

The particular tool Windsurf has to differentiate the AI-generated code helped me. Even though nowadays most editors already have a very similar tool, Windsurf's was the first that impressed me and was useful for me.

I think Windsurf is the one that offers the most consistent experience. However, I have to admit that the competition is pretty stiff. For me personally, the biggest differentiator when using an AI editor is the available models, and in reality most editors already have the same models. There is not a feature for me that stands out in Windsurf over other text editors currently, mainly speaking of flows, which are what really matter.

Since the vast majority of editors are based on Visual Studio Code, many times, especially at the beginning, you could notice how certain flows were still the same as Visual Studio Code unintentionally, for example, names of windows or things of that nature. However, Windsurf was the first that changed the editor layout format a bit, but kept it consistent across all its tools and how you were redirected between them. For example, with the same chat window, which at the time Visual Studio did not have a chat window and Windsurf developed one, and it worked quite well, it felt quite integrated into the editor because it was dynamic. On the other hand, there were other editors that had chat at the time, and it was quite clunky and very manual.

Even though not mentioned as an improvement, the tool for seeing differences between the previous code and the new code generated by AI helped me a lot to debug possible errors before seeing them, especially for certain animations involving SVG vectors.

I like the model Windsurf implemented, Windsurf's own model, SWE. I think it is good for what it offers, especially on a free tier. However, again, you have to go to the advanced models to really get a big difference.

Windsurf is not a current daily work tool. It is a tool that has been used in an exploratory way, which has been satisfactory; however, as I mentioned, there has been no noticeable difference compared to other tools.

In terms of productivity, there has not been any notable improvement. It was more pleasant at a usage level, but in terms of pure productivity as such, there has not been improvement.

I think having a light mode to be able to just edit code with a minimum of services running could help, since especially nowadays when there is scarcity or problems regarding RAM, when you do not have enough capacity. For example, I have a machine with 16 GB of RAM, and even with that, developing in React Native, I experience slowdowns, lags, and I see how my system slows down when I have many services consuming my RAM. Currently, I use native editors that help me, and the difference is very noticeable; it is practically from 100 megabytes to 1 gigabyte. I think optimizing resource consumption would be a very key point.

A very large project becomes a bit complicated to manage, since you have to have a lot of control over how the model is executed, basically having directives. However, I am not sure if this is replicable in other editors, because I have not tried that many large projects.

I have not had to contact support.

Windsurf was the first AI editor I used, specifically in an exploratory way. After Windsurf was when I dared to try other tools to see what different things they offered.

I evaluated both Zed, the editor that is native, and terminal tools such as Cloud Code and Open Code using other APIs.

The last project I developed was an editorial-style landing page using Astro, which did not have interactivity; however, they were components with a lot of dynamism and a lot of logic between animations and user-triggered flows.

In terms of productivity, there has not been any notable improvement. It was more pleasant at a usage level, but in terms of pure productivity as such, there has not been improvement.

For my main workflow, I do React Native development, and my main hurdle in using this editor, which is not strictly Windsurf's fault, is the performance issue. Since React Native, along with all the tools I need to keep running at the same time, consumes a lot of resources. The editor becomes one more competitor for my system resources, and this harms me a lot in performance, especially regarding RAM. I know this is not directly Windsurf's fault; it is the fault of what it is based on. But this is one of my major impediments when it comes to using an editor based on Visual Studio, which is Windsurf's case, and with which I had problems when developing in React Native.

I think having a light mode to be able to just edit code with a minimum of services running could help, since especially nowadays when there is scarcity or problems regarding RAM, when you do not have enough capacity. For example, I have a machine with 16 GB of RAM, and even with that, developing in React Native, I experience slowdowns, lags, and I see how my system slows down when I have many services consuming my RAM. Currently, I use native editors that help me, and the difference is very noticeable; it is practically from 100 megabytes to 1 gigabyte. I think optimizing resource consumption would be a very key point.

A very large project becomes a bit complicated to manage, since you have to have a lot of control over how the model is executed, basically having directives. However, I am not sure if this is replicable in other editors, because I have not tried that many large projects.

I would rate this product a 7 out of 10.

Regarding a specific example of how I use Windsurf, I engaged in a contextual conversation with the agent for a cross-cloud integration between AWS and Azure, leveraging a hybrid approach between cloud and Grok models to find the most cost-effective logic for the script. I provided the agent with the specific target environment, a virtual machine, and defined the deployment requirements. Windsurf helped me generate and refine the PowerShell script needed to bridge the two platforms, while ensuring the automation was optimized for performance and budget.

I use Windsurf to implement a lot of pipelines on GitHub Actions. I was working with the migration from Jenkins on a legacy application, and Windsurf helped me significantly with this migration, debugging all the pipelines and aiding me substantially with CI/CD.

All of the team has started working with Windsurf. We use rules for all the team so we have a standard procedure for deployment. This has helped with the agile development of the team, and with another application such as Linear, working with issues and incidents.

We were deploying one time a week before we started working with Windsurf, and with Windsurf, we are succeeding in a maximum of five releases in a week.

Windsurf is built on VS Code, which is the industry standard. This is a huge advantage for me because it allows for a seamless transition. I can keep using all my essential DevOps extensions for Azure, AWS, and Kubernetes without any compatibility issues. The user interface is familiar and high performance, meaning there is no learning curve. It feels like my professional environment, but with superpowers, thanks to the integrated AI Flow.

A standout moment was during a migration from Jenkins to GitHub Actions, converting complex Jenkins files into GitHub Actions workflows, which is typically a tedious process. Using Windsurf AI Flow, I was able to point the agent to my existing Jenkins pipelines. The AI did not just translate the code; it mapped the logic across the entire codebase, identifying environment variables, secret management requirements, and build dependencies. It autonomously generated the new GitHub workflow files and even suggested fixes for syntax mismatches that would have taken me hours to debug manually.

Windsurf is supporting MCP, which is an important standard for the integration with other tools. Most of the context tokens are consumed by documentation. We need a good structure for the agent to be optimized with this. Most of the time, our developers are wasting money because the agent does not save the context properly.

The tokens were fully consumed in the middle of the month. With the on-demand plan, we do not get extra tokens, so we have to downgrade our use of the agent models to a free one. When that happened, it increased the time of development because all the developers had to prompt the agents in a better way. However, that is more related to the decision on the plans. In five or six days, I consume all the tokens.

I am using Windsurf for generating unit test cases for my code and to improve my code, improve functionality in that code, and mostly I'm using it for coding purposes to generate new code.

For generating unit test cases, I am working on an MVC application, so there were many action methods in my application, and I generated the unit test cases for those action methods using Windsurf. I asked Windsurf to generate the unit test cases for those methods.

In my main use case for Windsurf, I sometimes ask it to optimize my code, as there were some performance-related glitches in the code, so I asked Windsurf to improve those.

In my opinion, the best features Windsurf offers are limited, as I have not used much apart from generating the code, but I found it less intelligent than the other AI tools in the market.

Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by improving our code quality and reducing our development time.

I feel that Windsurf can be improved, as sometimes it keeps giving the same answer again and again, which makes me feel stuck at those points in time, because it is giving the same answer in a loop.

I think they should definitely improve Windsurf. My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is to work on your prompt skills, and if it gives the same answer again and again, try a new chat.

I have never had a chance to talk to Windsurf's customer support, as I never had any complaint about that.

I have been using Windsurf for one and a half years.

I would say that Windsurf is somewhat stable.

Windsurf's scalability could be better, but we need more engines to select.

I have never had a chance to talk to Windsurf's customer support, as I never had any complaint about that.

Currently, I see only two AI engines I can select for Windsurf: one is the base model and the other is Claude 3.7.

My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is to work on your prompt skills, and if it gives the same answer again and again, try a new chat.

I would rate this product a 6 overall.

My main use case for Windsurf is code generation and live coding, as well as agent tech engineering.

I use Windsurf to understand existing code bases and add features to new code bases, as well as to debug issues using agent mode or tab completions.

Day-to-day, I mostly use the agent mode, and I have been using tab coding and tab completions less often now.

I use Windsurf to understand code bases by creating markdown documents.

The best features Windsurf offers are that it is fast, it maintains context well about the code base, and I appreciate the user interface.

The speed and context maintenance help me in my work because they keep me focused and I know what is exactly going on because it shows nice progress indicators.

Windsurf can be improved by integrating newer features and the latest features that tools like Claude Code provide, since I think the core team has been absorbed into Google and many people have been switching over to other IDEs.

I wish Windsurf had the ability to switch between multiple terminal agents like Claude Code and Codex; I am not sure if it is already integrated, but I know that MCP support has been added.

I have been using the solution for around one and a half to two years.

Windsurf is stable for the most part.

The scalability of Windsurf is good enough.

I have not had the need to reach out to customer support.

Before Windsurf, I was using VS Code and Cursor, and I switched because I wanted to know what Windsurf offers.

I had coded in Cursor before choosing Windsurf.

I am not sure if multiple people at my organization use Windsurf, but I personally do, and Windsurf with a good LLM model usually helps me to solve many coding tasks with ease.

Windsurf helps me solve coding tasks by often predicting what I would usually type next in tab completions, which saves me from typing multiple lines. For brainstorming and research work, I use agents so that I have contextual documentation and can solve multiple tasks easily.

My advice to others looking into using Windsurf is to read the documentation and demonstration videos to understand how to effectively use the tool. I would rate my overall experience with Windsurf as a seven.

My main use case is to build the development product that I am working on, so I used Windsurf to build 90% of my features. I used the agent present in Windsurf and prompted it to explain my feature, after which Windsurf ensured the feature was being completed. If the output was not optimized, I asked Windsurf to optimize it again.

I have built a platform that helps users create no-code AI agents, where users can simply come and create AI agents. In addition to this, we also provide an API. Using that API, we call multiple LLM providers. Using Windsurf I was able to create the backend of this product. I made a common middleware using which for every different payload, Windsurf is able to convert the current payload into that particular service provider payload and we can call the particular provider. For our users, the user only has to send one payload and we can call any model or any service they want. We are not restricted to a particular payload. This way, we created a proper robust solution.

The best feature is that you can drag code into the chat section and talk to that code, plan according to your features, and update that code. This feature makes my workflow easier by simply dragging my code to the chat box and Windsurf updating it. Windsurf does not hallucinate by simply writing a prompt. If I do not select the code, then Windsurf hallucinates and tries to change different code present in different sections of my repository. After selecting the code, Windsurf gets the proper exact location where it needs to make changes.

When I am building a feature that requires multiple changes throughout the entire repository, I write a complete prompt by selecting the files in which the required changes are meant to be done. This way, Windsurf makes sure that all the changes are done in that particular file only, and it does not hallucinate. I do not need to repeatedly tell Windsurf what to do, as it completes everything in one go.

The development has become significantly faster. Previously, the development was very slow, and after using Windsurf, my development speed increased by 70 to 80 percent. We are able to debug fast, build features fast, and deploy fast. This way, we ensure that our customers get as many features as they want in a very short time. We also ensure that our code quality is properly optimized by using Windsurf. We prompt in such a way that we write the best code that is bug-free and has as low error rate as possible.

There should be an auto model feature just like Cursor. Cursor provides an auto model feature that detects your task and chooses the best model for your task accordingly. This is cost-saving compared to using the highest cost model and will help to achieve better accuracy.

There should be an option where Windsurf should be able to connect to different integrated platforms such as Slack in a very easy way. If I want to build a feature, then I can simply type on my Slack and the feature should be ready. This way we can ensure that more and more features are built and Windsurf can simply return the pull request of the particular feature. A proper streaming should exist between Slack and Windsurf or any other channel.

Windsurf can be improved by introducing a plan method in which the user is asked all the necessary questions and a proper plan is generated with user metrics provided.

Sometimes, Windsurf is not able to develop the feature that we want and hallucinates a lot. The hallucination should be very much less compared to now as the models are evolving day by day. Windsurf should evolve in such a way that it should take custom prompting. It should ensure that an agent.md file is already present in the code base where the user can write how the agent should work, how the agent should react, and what it was explicitly trained for. This way, there will be much less hallucination and more code generation with better quality, and Windsurf will work according to user requirements.

There should be a proper markdown folder specifically designed in Windsurf for each product.

I would like to suggest that there should be one more feature that I am not able to use. Currently, I am not able to work on two repositories at a single time. Suppose I want to develop a feature that requires changes in both my frontend and backend. Windsurf lags in this scenario. It can only have access to the backend or it can only have access to the frontend and not both. If this feature comes, then Windsurf will be top in the market.

I have been using Windsurf for two years.

Previously, Windsurf was not stable. It used to not change a particular file, but now it is stable.

Windsurf can handle a lot of users at a time. Our team is working around 10 to 12 members on a Windsurf account and they are easily able to do it. There is no lagging in that. Windsurf can ensure that multiple users can work simultaneously on a single product.

The customer support was not that good. It is mentioned on their website that you need to mail customer support to contact them. There is not an easy way to reach them. The experience was not so good as we have to wait for them to reply to our mail. I feel this is a very low rating.

Previously, I used Cursor, but Windsurf was better at that time. However, after Cursor evolved in a great way and now it works very fine.

Money is saved and time is saved up to 80 to 90 percent because we are able to deploy fast. Money is also saved as we require fewer developers to work on a particular task. Before using Windsurf, we used to have 20 employees on a team, and now we have 10 employees only.

I would say Windsurf is a better platform at low cost, around $15 per month. Compared to other costs, it is lower. It is a good value. If you know prompting, you can do any task with Windsurf.

I used Cursor as a solution because in Cursor there is a planning method and I can work on two repositories at the same time. Due to this, I would like to switch to Cursor. There are many more AI tools in the market now that are giving better responses compared to Windsurf. AIdrivity, Cursor, and Open Copilot are the top ones that are giving better responses.

There are multiple purposes for which I am using Windsurf. The accuracy of Windsurf agent was not directly good, but after I provided a few things, I received better results. We use it in a public cloud and have bought a plan for Windsurf for our team members, where we can communicate with the entire team using a plan. I would give this review an overall rating of 6.

Windsurf's main use case for me is to generate skills and create supporting files and scripts for those skills so that it can generate Selenium test scripts and also generate reports from performance logs. A user would input performance logs and receive an analysis of those logs as an HTML report at the end.

In a recent project, I created a skill that contained all the regex patterns and search patterns a user must use to get the right information from a large HTML log file containing performance testing logs. I also created a Python script and added it into the skill, mentioning in the skill.md file to use this Python file to extract certain information. It performed its own checklist and then provided an HTML report as the output.

I have yet to explore the Arena side, but I would say the best features of Windsurf are the cascade, the ability to access a browser for it to actually index the codebase, and the autocomplete because of that indexing. The best aspect is the ability to select from however many models are available in the list. Windsurf also has both a code and a plan mode, and I appreciate the ease of use—it is very straightforward.

Windsurf has absolutely impacted my day-to-day work by making things faster, mainly through autocomplete. One of the main positive impacts of Windsurf on my organization is to speed up workflows for developers and testers. All the skills that I am creating are so that other developers and testers can pull these skills into their local workspace and speed up their workflow. For performance testers, instead of going through huge logs, they can directly review a compact report with all the important information in it, mainly to save time.

Estimating how much time has been saved for my team thanks to Windsurf is challenging; I cannot really quantify it and I am not certain of the impact of the things I have built.

Windsurf can be improved with some sort of multi-agent orchestration at times and an easier way to add MCPs, as well as an easier way for it to use the browser without me mentioning it.

Windsurf should definitely improve on the retrieval coverage side and multi-agent side, which Cloud Code and others have.

I have been using Windsurf for the past six months.

No rating was provided for this section beyond an overall rating.

The advice I would give to others looking into using Windsurf is that the credit system in the enterprise plan is really good. Even though I was quite a power user for a while, I was not able to hit the limit of those thousand credits, which is one of the biggest advantages. I think the biggest advice is to try out different models and see how they interact with your codebase, and make sure you can use skills, rules, and workflows wherever possible, which should help a lot. My overall rating for this review is 7.

I have been using Windsurf off and on for the last year. My main use case for Windsurf is for software development. Currently, we're working on an API, and Windsurf will help us develop a particular feature so we can enter a prompt and it executes.

As we're developing features, Windsurf fits into my workflow day to day.

Windsurf offers a nice alternative to the different AI IDEs out there right now.

What makes Windsurf stand out as an alternative to other AI IDEs I've tried is limited. As we're experimenting with different AI IDEs, Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by providing options.

Having more options has led to specific improvements or outcomes for my team.

I have no suggestions at the moment for how Windsurf can be improved. I would not add more about the needed improvements, even small things that could make my experience better.

I have been working in my current field for eight years.

Windsurf is stable.

Windsurf's scalability is fine.

I'm not sure how the customer support is.

I previously used Cursor, and we just wanted to try the different options out there. I evaluated Cursor before choosing Windsurf.

I don't have anything else to add about my use case with Windsurf. I don't have anything to add about the features. I gave Windsurf a rating of seven because I don't have any complaints about the product. I don't have any advice to give to others looking into using Windsurf. I don't have any additional thoughts about Windsurf before we wrap up.

My main use case for Windsurf is for development while coding. Whenever we have Jira stories or anything, such as a bug fix, we go and ask Windsurf to work on it.

The best features Windsurf offers are the agent and flow. The agent stands out because with Windsurf, we can connect to the different MCP servers, which is helpful. Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by increasing productivity. From my point of view, it has increased productivity because we are doing a one-week hackathon, and we were able to build a product from scratch, which would have taken at least two to three weeks. With Windsurf helping me build it in a week, the time savings are substantial.

I don't think of any improvements for Windsurf right now. If Windsurf could come and build with all these connections to different clean services, that would be helpful.

I have been using Windsurf for almost less than a year.

Windsurf is stable.

Windsurf's scalability is much better.

I didn't need customer support, so that's a good point. I would probably rate the customer support a 10.

I have used Copilot before, but I found Windsurf much faster and much easier.

I think we see a return on investment in terms of time saved. From my point of view, I see that within our team, we are doing a lot better.

Before choosing Windsurf, I evaluated Cursor.

It's easy to onboard a new engineer with Windsurf, helping them get onboarded much faster. I chose 7 out of 10 because I've used Cursor as well, and sometimes I feel Cursor hallucinates less compared to Windsurf. Windsurf is a one-stop shop to do live coding and fast coding. I found this interview pretty good and don't think anything should change for the future. My overall review rating for Windsurf is 7 out of 10.