The short answer: Kiro is a fixed-credit plan with a written-spec workflow; Cursor is a $20 plan whose allowance is measured in dollars of model usage. Kiro Pro is $20 a month for 1,000 credits, so an included credit works out at $0.02, and extra credits cost $0.04, double. Cursor Pro is also $20 and lets you add on-demand usage at the model’s own API rate. Choose Kiro if you want requirements, design and tasks written down before code and a credit count you can read; choose Cursor if you want a faster general-purpose agent editor and are happy to watch a dollar pool.
Plans side by side
| Attribute | Kiro | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Free | Free: 50 credits a month | Hobby: limited Agent requests |
| Entry paid | Pro $20: 1,000 credits | Pro $20: included usage in two pools |
| Mid | Pro+ $40: 2,000 credits | A step above Pro (see Cursor pricing) |
| High | Pro Max $100: 5,000 credits; Power $200: 10,000 | Ultra $200 |
| Past the allowance | Add-on credits at $0.04 each, packs from $5 to $100, valid 12 months | On-demand usage at the model’s API rate, billed monthly |
| Unused allowance | Does not roll over | Pools reset with the billing cycle |
| Teams | Per-user pricing up to 500 users | Teams $40 per user, Premium $120 |
From Kiro’s pricing page and Cursor’s models and pricing docs, checked 2 October 2026; the same figures sit in our pricing index. Kiro also says new users who upgrade through social login or an AWS Builder ID receive a $20 credit toward the subscription; check the offer at sign-up.
Kiro’s credit, in dollars
A credit is Kiro’s “unit of work in response to user prompts”. Simple prompts can use less than one; complex ones such as executing a spec task typically cost more than one, and the minimum charge is 0.01 credit. Model choice changes the rate: Kiro’s models page rates Claude Sonnet 5 at 1.3 times and Claude Opus 5.5 at 2.0 times the credits of its default Auto routing. Dividing price by allowance gives the real price of a credit:
| Plan | Price | Credits | Included credit | Extra credit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pro | $20 | 1,000 | $0.02 | $0.04 |
| Pro+ | $40 | 2,000 | $0.02 | $0.04 |
| Pro Max | $100 | 5,000 | $0.02 | $0.04 |
| Power | $200 | 10,000 | $0.02 | $0.04 |
Two readings follow. Every paid tier gives the same $0.02 a credit, so moving up buys volume, not a better rate. And running over costs twice as much as the plan: a month that needs 1,300 credits costs $20 + 300 x $0.04 = $32 on Pro, while Pro+ at $40 would hold the same work with 700 to spare. Over about 1,500 credits a month, Pro+ is cheaper than Pro plus extras.
Spec mode versus vibe mode: the claim we could not confirm
Comparison pages circulate a fixed ratio of five times the credits for spec-mode work against ordinary chat. Kiro’s docs do not state one. The pricing page says only that complex tasks like spec execution consume more, and the billing docs say credits are consumed fractionally by complexity, with no separate rate card for spec requests. Until Kiro publishes a multiplier, budget from your own usage dashboard rather than a ratio.
What a spec is, per Kiro’s docs: a three-phase workflow that writes requirements.md (or bugfix.md), design.md and tasks.md, with approval between phases. When you run all tasks, Kiro works out dependencies and runs independent tasks concurrently. Kiro’s pricing page says spec task execution typically costs more than one credit, so a feature run through a spec will usually use more than a chat turn.
The workflow difference
- Kiro puts the written spec in your repository and keeps standing knowledge in steering files:
.kiro/steering/for a project,~/.kiro/steering/for all projects, with workspace taking priority. Files load always, by file pattern, on request, or automatically by relevance. Hooks automate agent actions on events (steering docs). - Cursor reaches a similar place with Plan mode: the agent asks questions, researches the codebase, writes an editable plan, and builds when you click (Plan mode docs). Standing instructions live in rules, kept in
.cursor/rules, plus user, team and AGENTS.md rules (rules docs). See Cursor rules explained.
The practical difference is where the plan lives and how binding it is. In Kiro the spec is the unit of work and approvals are part of the flow; in Cursor the plan is optional, and you can skip it for small changes.
Which to pick
- You want requirements and tasks written before code, with approvals: Kiro.
- You want to try an agent editor free: both have free plans; Kiro’s is 50 credits, Cursor’s is limited Agent requests. Neither says what that buys in a normal session.
- You want to choose among many third-party models and see dollar pricing: Cursor; usage is charged at API rates and Cursor describes daily Agent users as typically reaching $60 to $100 of total usage a month.
- You want a hard monthly figure: Kiro’s credits are countable, but the cost per task is not published, so neither tool gives you a fixed cost per feature.
- You are weighing other editors: see Antigravity vs Cursor, Cursor pricing explained and the best AI code editors.
Method note
Researched from Kiro’s and Cursor’s own pricing pages and documentation; checked 2 October 2026. Dollar-per-credit figures are division of the published prices and allowances. No credit-consumption or speed measurements were run, and none are claimed.