Prices and tiers are visible above the fold, which is the floor — but the page defaults to monthly billing, has no recommended tier, no value-prop headline, and the Individual card hides Pro+/Ultra pricing behind an in-card toggle that most visitors won't touch.

The page heading is literally 'Pricing' — a navigation label, not a value statement. All four tier names and starting prices ($0, $20, $40, Custom) are visible without scrolling, which is good, but the pricing model is ambiguous: Individual shows '$20/mo.' while Teams shows '$40/user/mo.' — the per-seat distinction isn't visually emphasized and 'Individual' contains a nested Pro/Pro+/Ultra sub-toggle that a 5-second glance won't resolve.

Replace the 'Pricing' heading with a one-line outcome + model statement, e.g. 'AI code editor for individual devs and teams — from free to $40/user/mo.' and remove the sub-tier toggle from the pricing card (surface Pro+ and Ultra as separate columns or a dedicated upgrade path post-signup).

There is no value proposition on this page at all. The page opens with the word 'Pricing', followed immediately by a billing-cycle toggle. No headline explains what Cursor is, who it's for, or what outcome a buyer gets. A visitor arriving cold from an ad has zero context.

Add a two-line hero above the billing toggle: headline 'Write and ship code 2× faster with an AI-native editor' + kicker 'Used by 500,000+ developers at Stripe, OpenAI, Figma, and Adobe.' This converts the logo bar's implicit proof into an explicit outcome claim before the buyer sees any numbers.

All four tier cards render with identical visual weight — same card style, same secondary button style, same font size. The only CTA that differs is 'Get Pro' on Individual, which renders as a filled dark button, but that card is for a $20 plan, not the highest-margin tier (Teams at $40/user). There is no 'Most Popular' badge, no visual elevation, no pricing anchor from a higher number pulling the eye.

Add a 'Most Popular' badge and visually elevate the Teams card (border highlight, slightly larger card, filled primary CTA button reading 'Start Teams Free Trial'). Demote Hobby's CTA to a plain text link. This shifts anchoring to the $40/user tier and makes the conversion path obvious.

Each tier lists deltas via 'Everything in X, plus:' which is clean in principle. But the Individual card's sub-toggle (Pro / Pro+/ Ultra) introduces a second pricing dimension that is never explained on the card itself — Pro+ and Ultra prices are not shown, so the reader can't evaluate the step-up. 'MCPs, skills, and hooks' and 'Bugbot on usage-based billing' are jargon without inline explanation.

Show the price for each sub-tier inline in the toggle (e.g. 'Pro $20 · Pro+ $40 · Ultra $200') and add a one-line tooltip or parenthetical for 'MCPs' ('Model Context Protocol integrations') and 'Bugbot' ('automated code review bot').

The billing toggle defaults to Monthly, not Yearly — the single highest-ROI default setting on any SaaS pricing page. No annual savings percentage or dollar amount is shown anywhere. Charm pricing is consistent ($20, $40) but loses its effect when annual savings are invisible.

Default the toggle to Yearly and show annual savings inline on each card, e.g. 'Save $48/yr' in green text beneath the price. Rewrite the Yearly toggle label to 'Yearly (save 20%)' so the discount is legible before the visitor makes a selection.

Three of four tier CTAs use the same secondary ghost button style ('Download', 'Get Teams', 'Contact Sales'). Only 'Get Pro' uses a filled button, but Pro is the $20 individual tier, not the team tier Cursor likely wants to grow. 'Get Teams' and 'Download' are category verbs with no outcome or trial signal — 'Download' doesn't even hint at a free plan.

Promote the Teams CTA to a filled primary button reading 'Start free Teams trial'. Rewrite Hobby's CTA to 'Download free — no card needed'. Rewrite 'Contact Sales' to 'Get Enterprise pricing'. This creates one clear primary CTA per commercial tier and removes the ambiguity in 'Download'.

Hobby correctly surfaces 'No credit card required' as a bullet, which is the right move. However, the Individual and Teams tiers give no trial signal — visitors don't know if there's a free trial, how long it is, or whether a credit card is required to start. The Teams CTA links directly to a new-team creation flow, bypassing any trial framing.

Add '14-day free trial · no credit card required' as inline subtext below the CTA on Individual and Teams cards. If no trial exists, state 'Cancel anytime' instead — the absence of any friction-reduction copy below those CTAs is a conversion leak.

A strong 8-logo bar (Stripe, OpenAI, Linear, Datadog, Nvidia, Figma, Ramp, Adobe) sits below the tier cards — past the primary decision moment. The kicker reads 'Trusted every day by teams that build world-class software,' which is a generic claim that wastes these extraordinary logos. No customer count is shown anywhere.

Move the logo bar above the tier grid, between the page headline and the billing toggle. Rewrite the kicker to 'Join 500,000+ developers at Stripe, OpenAI, Figma, and Adobe' (insert actual user count) — a specific number plus named customers outperforms a generic trust claim by a significant margin.

The footer shows 'SOC 2 Certified' in tiny type — the only trust signal on the entire page. No refund policy, no cancellation terms, no money-back guarantee, no tax/VAT handling note. The FAQ addresses data privacy but doesn't mention refunds or cancellation at all. For a $20–$40/user/mo. purchase, this is a meaningful gap.

Add a single trust strip beneath the tier grid with four items: '🔒 SOC 2 Type II certified · Cancel anytime · 30-day refund policy · Prices exclude VAT where applicable.' Link 'refund policy' to the terms page. This takes under a day to implement and removes a silent objection for new buyers.

There is no feature comparison matrix on the page. Given that the Individual tier contains three hidden sub-tiers (Pro, Pro+, Ultra) with unstated prices and that Hobby vs. Individual deltas are summarized in 3-bullet shorthand, buyers who want a detailed comparison have no path — they must go to docs. This is especially harmful for Teams vs. Enterprise evaluation.

Add a collapsible full-feature comparison table below the tier cards, grouped into at minimum: 'Usage limits', 'Models & agents', 'Collaboration', and 'Security & compliance'. Include the Pro/Pro+/Ultra sub-tiers as columns within Individual. This is a 1-week build and directly reduces 'contact sales' friction for Teams-to-Enterprise evaluators.

7 FAQ items exist but two critical objections are missing: (1) how to cancel a subscription, and (2) what happens at the end of a billing period / overage behavior beyond the single vague sentence about 'on-demand usage billed in arrears.' The cancellation question is the #1 pre-purchase objection for recurring SaaS subscriptions.

Add 'How do I cancel my subscription?' with a specific answer ('You can cancel anytime from Settings → Billing. Access continues until the end of the paid period. No cancellation fees.') and expand the usage-based pricing answer to include a concrete example: 'If your plan includes $X of model usage and you exceed it, additional requests are billed at $Y per 1M tokens.'

There is no competitive frame anywhere on the page — no 'vs GitHub Copilot', no 'vs Windsurf' callout, no comparison table link, no specific contrasting claim. In a category (AI code editors) with multiple well-funded alternatives, the absence of any differentiation signal forces the buyer to do that work themselves.

Add a single callout row or link beneath the tier grid: 'See how Cursor compares to GitHub Copilot →' linking to a /compare page. Even a one-line competitive frame ('Unlike Copilot, Cursor gives your agent full codebase context') converts undecided buyers who are actively comparison-shopping.