Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

JetBrains IDEs vs Windsurf comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

JetBrains IDEs
Ranking in IDE
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Windsurf
Ranking in IDE
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
AI Code Assistants (4th), AI Software Development (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the IDE category, the mindshare of JetBrains IDEs is 7.9%, up from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Windsurf is 8.6%, down from 9.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IDE Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Windsurf8.6%
JetBrains IDEs7.9%
Other83.5%
IDE
 

Featured Reviews

Souhardyya Biswas - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Long-term coding has benefited from intuitive UI and tools but now needs lighter performance
I am using the code completion feature in IntelliJ, and it helps me with my development processes. I use advanced debugging tools. The advanced debugging tools are useful for resolving code issues. The integration with version controls is seamless. GitHub is what I use. For my professional role, I need to use GitHub Enterprise, and the way it is set up in my enterprise, it does not allow linking it with IntelliJ. That is where I am stuck using the CLI. GitHub itself has a very robust CLI, so I have no complaints there. For personal use, GitHub integrates really well with IntelliJ. The UI is pretty good and very intuitive. I actually use the new UI which IntelliJ provides, and that is very intuitive and good.
reviewer2748786 - PeerSpot reviewer
Founding BackEnd Engineer
Enhancing productivity with advanced code generation and low-cost accessibility
What they can do further and venture into next is to provide a CLI environment, similar to the command-line interface environment that Cursor offers. It allows for running a cursor agent from the command line to make changes, review pull requests, or access certain other capabilities. These capabilities are currently not in Windsurf. Windsurf focuses on the productivity and the ID/editor part. I would rather look for the inclusion of pull request reviews or a kind of a TRD or technical requirement general documentation generation, or system diagram generation directly from the codebase in Windsurf itself. These should be the next obvious features they launch for developers. In our team, there are certain people who use Windsurf regularly and appreciate using it. However, it is not a collaborative tool where someone is going to use the same tool and interact in the same IDE. Everyone does their local development, pushes it to different Git branches, someone reviews the PR, and then merges the branch. It is very localized in that sense.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Good support for refactoring."
"Having the complete development environment in Linux in the same way as in Windows is already the best."
"I have seen a return on investment with Windsurf because I have saved time and money and needed fewer resources since using it."
"As we're experimenting with different AI IDEs, Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by providing options."
"As we're experimenting with different AI IDEs, Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by providing options."
"Windsurf has positively impacted my organization by increasing productivity, because during a one-week hackathon we were able to build a product from scratch that would have taken at least two to three weeks, making the time savings substantial."
 

Cons

"One of the most important things to improve is the consumption of resources, mainly memory."
"Sometimes, plugins (from third parties) are not updated."
"I chose 7 out of 10 because I've used Cursor as well, and sometimes I feel Cursor hallucinates less compared to Windsurf."
"Since using Windsurf, I notice more errors, but we deliver approximately twice as fast."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IDE solutions are best for your needs.
879,899 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Windsurf?
I would rate it two out of 10 for cost. It is very cheap compared to other tools in the market because 80% of the time, we are happy with their free model capabilities. Only 20% of the time do we g...
What needs improvement with Windsurf?
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.
What is your primary use case for Windsurf?
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 particula...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Citi, Siemens, Salesforce, Twitter, HP, New York Times, Pintrest, Airbnb, Expedia, Samsung, Volkswagen, Wikipedia, NASA
Dell, Anduril, MongoDB, Zillow, Atlassian
Find out what your peers are saying about JetBrains IDEs vs. Windsurf and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,899 professionals have used our research since 2012.