**Cursor vs JetBrains Rider for C#/.NET in 2026: which to pay for

Senior C#/.NET teams aren't really choosing between Cursor and JetBrains Rider — they're paying for both, configuring them to share state, and refusing to choose. This essay is the honest comparison, the pricing math, and the 90-second setup that stops the two tools from drifting out of sync on the same codebase.

The wrong question (and the right one)

Search the .NET subreddit on any given week and you'll find a thread titled something like "Should I drop Rider for Cursor?" The answers split into two camps: "Cursor is the future, Rider is dying" and "Cursor is a glorified VS Code, Rider's debugger alone is worth the licence." Both miss the point.

Cursor is an AI coder. Rider is an IDE. They overlap on the minimum-viable surface (open file, edit, save, git) and almost nowhere else. Asking which one to pick is like asking whether you should buy a car or a satnav. The right question is: given the way each one breaks first, what configuration lets you keep both for $28 a month?

What Rider still does that Cursor doesn't (yet)

These are the things that, as of mid-2026, still take a senior .NET dev twice as long in Cursor as they do in Rider:

• ************Refactoring across solutions. Rider's Rename, Move type, Extract interface, and Pull members up are still surgically precise on a 200-project solution. Cursor's prompt-driven equivalents work, but they hallucinate references in obscure xUnit fixtures roughly one in twenty times.

• ****The debugger. Conditional breakpoints, expression evaluation in mixed managed/native frames, async call-stack reconstruction, decompiled-source stepping into NuGet packages. Cursor relies on VS Code's debugger; for serious .NET debugging you reach for Rider every time.

• ****Hot Reload + dotnet-watch loops. Better surfaced, better tested, and survives more solution layouts than the VS Code C# Dev Kit equivalent.

• ****Inspections (R# heritage). Two thousand-plus inspections shipped, scoped per-project, with bulk-fix actions. Cursor will tell you about a code smell when you ask. Rider tells you before you save.

• ****Profiling (dotTrace, dotMemory) and database tooling. The integrated tools matter more than they look on paper - they remove the context-switch tax of leaving the IDE.

What Cursor does that Rider can't (yet)

And the reverse list - things you reach for Cursor for, even if Rider is already open:

• ******Multi-file agentic edits. "Add a CancellationToken parameter to every async method in the Application layer and propagate it." Cursor does this in one prompt across 60 files. Rider's R# bulk actions can do the rename; only Cursor can do the cascade and update the call sites.

• ****Composer and Background Agents. Long-running tasks ("port this controller to Minimal API endpoints, write the matching xUnit tests, then run them") are Cursor's home turf. Rider has AI Assistant; it doesn't iterate.

• ******Semantic codebase search. "Find me the place we authorise admin-only endpoints" returns the right file in Cursor. Rider's Find Usages needs the symbol first.

• ``MCP servers and .mdc rules. Cursor's directory-scoped rule system and MCP integrations (local databases, custom analysers, vendor APIs) have no Rider equivalent.

• ****Speed of light for boilerplate. New MediatR command + handler + validator + endpoint + xUnit + Postman example, all consistent with the existing patterns in your repo. Cursor with the right rules ships this in under a minute.

The pricing math

********Senior .NET developers in the UK and EU bill at £60-£120/hour. Both tools are an irrelevance against that baseline, but for completeness, in 2026 GBP:

      ToolPlanCostWhat you actually get

      CursorPro$20/mo (~£16)Sonnet/Opus access, Composer, MCP, 500 fast requests
      JetBrains RiderPersonal annual$159/yr (~£125)Rider only, all updates
      JetBrains All ProductsPersonal annual$289/yr (~£230)Rider + DataGrip + WebStorm + ReSharper + 9 more
      Both (typical senior)Cursor Pro + Rider~$33/mo (~£26)Single seat, both tools, no compromise

£26/month is roughly 13 minutes of senior billing time. The tools save that much before lunch. If your employer doesn't expense both, push back; if you're freelance, both go on Schedule C / your self-assessment as ordinary business expenses. There's no realistic scenario where saving £125/year on Rider makes financial sense.

**
Heavier tip: if you also use WebStorm or DataGrip, the All Products Pack (£230/year) breaks even at two JetBrains tools and includes Rider. Most senior .NET devs already qualify.

Why running both is dangerous (without configuration)

Here is the failure mode nobody warns you about: context drift.

You refactor a domain entity in Rider. Six minutes later, you ask Cursor to add a new MediatR handler that uses it. Cursor's snapshot of the codebase is from before the refactor, because you haven't reopened the relevant files in the Cursor window. It writes the handler against the old shape. You don't notice until tests fail, or worse, until the analyser inspection fires three commits later in CI.

The mirror failure: Cursor agentically edits 14 files in one prompt; Rider's local R# inspection cache is stale, so half the new code lights up red until you trigger a solution-wide rebuild. New engineers on the team assume the AI broke something. Trust in the tools erodes.

Both failures have the same root cause: the two tools share a working tree but not a state model. Fix that and you stop choosing.

The configuration that makes them play nice

Three things, in this order:

1. ****One repo, one solution file, both tools opened on the same root. Don't run them on different working copies. Both honour .gitignore the same way; both index .sln files; neither writes index garbage into version control.

2. ``A shared .cursor/rules/ directory. The rules tell Cursor what your house style is - Result over throw, Scoped over Singleton for repository services, AsNoTracking for read-only EF queries, etc. Rider's R# inspections enforce the same conventions from the IDE side. Both tools read the same source of truth: your code.

3. ````A LEARNING_LOG.md at repo root. Every architectural decision goes here as a one-line ADR. Cursor reads it on session start (via persistence.mdc); humans use it when onboarding a new dev. The Learning Log is the bridge between Rider's static analysis and Cursor's stateless prompt-time context.

This is not a hypothetical setup. It's the exact pattern the Agentic Architect kit was built to enforce, originally because we kept hitting the context-drift problem on a real client codebase. Senior teams ship the kit, point both tools at the same root, and the drift stops.

A 90-second setup

Assuming both tools are installed and licensed:

1. Open the same solution root in both

cd MyDotnetSolution.sln

2. Add scoped Cursor rules (or grab arch-core-lite.mdc free)

mkdir -p .cursor/rules
curl -L https://github.com/agenticstandardcontact-byte/agentic-architect/raw/main/arch-core-lite.mdc \
-o .cursor/rules/arch-core.mdc

3. Seed a Learning Log Cursor will re-read on session start

cat > LEARNING_LOG.md <<EOF

Learning Log

ADR-001 - Result over throw for business failures

ADR-002 - Scoped lifetime for DbContext, never captured by Singletons

ADR-003 - AsNoTracking on every read-only IQueryable

EOF

4. Commit the conventions

git add .cursor/ LEARNING_LOG.md
git commit -m "chore: align Cursor + Rider on house style"

**
Open Cursor and ask: "Hydrate the Learning Log from the current codebase." It will scan and propose ADRs for the patterns it detects. Accept the ones you actually use; reject the rest. Now both tools agree.

Where each one breaks first

*****************``*Even with the configuration above, both tools have edges. Use the right one for the job:

      TaskReach forWhy

      Renaming a public type used in 80 filesRiderSymbol-aware refactor, won't miss xUnit fixtures or attribute references
      Adding the same field + constructor + DI registration across 12 servicesCursorAgentic loop with Composer; Rider can't iterate on intent
      Async call-stack debugging into a NuGet packageRiderDecompiled-source stepping; Cursor relies on the VS Code debugger
      Porting a controller to Minimal API + tests + Swagger docCursorMulti-file edit + iterate-until-tests-pass; pure prompt territory
      Inspecting why a Scoped service is captured by a SingletonRiderdotnet-di.mdc in Cursor catches it post-hoc; Rider catches it on hover
      Wiring a new MCP server that queries your local SQLiteCursorRider doesn't speak MCP yet

The honest verdict

**
If you bill at senior rates and you're staring at the £125/year Rider question: pay for both. If your employer is asking which to expense for a team of 10: expense both. If you're a junior starting your first .NET role: get Rider via the JetBrains free .NET Foundation programme or your employer's seat, and run Cursor Pro on your own card while you're learning. The tools are complementary; the only configuration that fails is having neither.

Where this article ends and the kit begins: the configuration above is necessary but not sufficient. Without scoped rules and a Learning Log, both tools regress to the public-internet average of a .NET codebase - exceptions for business failures, EF Core in your domain layer, DbContext captured by Singletons. The tools are the engine. The rules are the steering.

Pair with the rest of the series

If this is the first essay you've read here, the three foundational ones are: The Context Tax (why Cursor forgets your architecture every morning), The Scoped→Singleton DI bug (the .NET-specific failure mode that ships silently), and Teach Cursor Result instead of throwing (stop the AI from regressing your error model on every prompt). All three apply equally whether you run Cursor solo or alongside Rider.

Originally published at https://agenticstandardcontact-byte.github.io/agentic-architect/blog/05-cursor-vs-rider-dotnet.html. Part of the Agentic Architect persistence kit for Cursor + .NET.