Claude Code vs Cursor vs Copilot: An Honest Review After 40 Production Automations
₹40,000 to ₹70,000 — that's the extra monthly capacity my consulting practice has picked up since switching my primary dev loop to Claude Code six months ago. Forty production automations shipped in that window: bank reconciliation pipelines, stock screeners, ITR-prep bots, expense categorizers, GST filing helpers, a couple of trading systems I still babysit. This post is the scorecard. What…
This report offers an honest review of three AI coding assistants — Claude Code, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot — after integrating Claude Code into a consulting practice for 40 production automations in six months. The AI assistant boosted the practice's capacity by ₹40,000 to ₹70,000 monthly, resulting in 38% lower build time and half the client revisions.
While Claude Code excels at multi-file reasoning, asking the right questions, coherent long-running tasks, and respecting existing code, it struggles with weak fintech APIs and can enter costly debug loops. Comparatively, Cursor performs better for single-file editing, and Copilot is the cheapest option for simple typing tasks. The report suggests specific use cases for each tool and highlights the importance of setting budgets to control costs.
Ultimately, the shift to Claude Code has resulted in a secondary income stream without hiring additional staff.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
