Windsurf IDE vs. JetBrains Junie

📝 What are Windsurf AI IDE and JetBrains' Junie?

Windsurf AI IDE is a standalone code editor designed to integrate with large language models. It's a fork of VS Code, so it shares the same look and feel. It supports multiple models and includes features like task planning, conversational editing, and terminal command execution.

JetBrains Junie is an AI assistant built into JetBrains IDEs. It interacts with your project files, code selections, and editor context, and supports multiple LLM providers.

🎯 The Test Prompts

I gave both tools the exact two instructions:

1. “Write me a component for a React tag or pill”
2. “Generate tests for the pill component”

Both tools were using Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4 model, and I used the highest-tier licenses available.

⚙️ Setup and Export

Windsurf immediately stood out with a Markdown export feature. Every step of the conversation, from plan to output, was traceable and human-readable. I could save the entire session locally, inspect the chain of reasoning, and review the evolution of the component and tests.

Junie doesn’t offer that yet. There’s an open feature request, but currently, there's no way to export the conversation. A history is saved somewhere (likely locally), but it’s not exposed in a useful way.

For me, this is a plus point for Windsurf IDE - exportability matters! Whether I’m archiving decisions, pairing with another engineer asynchronously, or auditing LLM behavior, traceability beats ephemeral UX.

🧠 Accuracy of Output: Same Model, Different Results

While both use Claude Sonnet 4, the experience diverged quickly:

While Junie did generate the full test lifecycle, including setup and correction, the road was bumpier. Windsurf seemed to “listen” to the terminal more actively and adapt in real-time, fixing issues or invalid config keys as they arose. Junie, while capable, sometimes needed more manual nudging between attempts, and the terminal instance required manual opening/input of selections.

✅ Code Quality and Test Generation

• Windsurf’s output included:
  • Full component with 7 color variants, 3 sizes, and ARIA support
  • Full Jest setup with config, test environment, and 32 passing tests
  • Clean separation of logic, styles, and usage examples
  • A working webpack dev preview with hot reload
    
• Junie’s output worked, but:
  • Lacked dev preview setup
  • Smaller test file with basic render and interaction coverage
  • Included tests, but fewer edge cases and weaker accessibility checks
  • Took more time to resolve Jest config errors and didn't auto-fix --watchAll fallback

Both tools generated tests, but the paths were not identical. Both required some trial and error, but Windsurf made debugging feel more collaborative — its interactivity gave the impression that the assistant was “in the loop” with what I was doing.

While both tools worked, Windsurf felt more complete.

💡 JSX vs. TSX

This wasn’t something I asked for, but it showed up anyway:

• Windsurf (Claude 4) returned JSX files
• Webstorm Junie (Claude 4) returned TSX files
• Webstorm Junie (Claude 3.5) returned JSX for the same prompt

No deeper point, just a detail that says a lot about how model behavior is shaped by context, environment, and scaffolding.

🐛 Debugging and Dev Setup

Windsurf is very terminal-aware.
When a script failed, it knew. When the Jest config broke, it fixed it. When Babel complained, it installed the right presets. Then it scaffolded a Webpack dev server with hot reload — no extra prompting needed.

Junie didn’t track terminal output as much.
It could fix things, but only after being explicitly asked. It didn’t observe CLI failures on its own. I had to interact and inform Junie, and only then would it react.

So while both tools technically got everything working, Windsurf felt like it was actively collaborating, while Junie felt like it was waiting for instructions.

🧠 Same Model, Different Scaffolding

This wasn’t about Claude Sonnet 4 – the LLM did what LLMs do. The difference was in how each tool primed it, listened to the output, and reacted when something broke.

Windsurf acted like a tool that knows it’s in a dev environment. It anticipated next steps. It paid attention.

Junie acted like an assistant living inside a larger system — capable, but disconnected unless explicitly plugged into each step.

🏁 Final Take

I didn’t go into this with expectations, but Windsurf surprised me — the quality of output and collaborative process was better vs. Junie. While Junie got the job done, it needed more nudging, more follow-up, and more reminders that something had gone wrong.

Overall, both took a significant amount of time for a single React Component, so in practice, as the codebase grows, I don't see these tools getting faster, but rather slower.

To use either as a daily assistant is too time-consuming – if the rate of response and time to completion were shorter, I could see each working similarly to a Junior Developer.

📦 Build Results

Windsurf:

Jetbrains Junie:

Additional Reading:

Windsurf AI: The Best AI IDE for Developers? | HackerNoon

Windsurf AI is an AI-powered Integrated Development Environment designed to understand your entire project’s context.

HackerNoonVladislav Guzey

My experience using Junie for the past few months

Junie is one of the best coding agent I’ve been trying out so far. Very well integrated with IntelliJ, great for Kotlin, and the test first focus makes it quite good at coming out with good results. However, I do miss the capability to only accept part of a solution and it can be very slowwwwww.

Julien's DevRel cornerJulien

JetBrains Junie: My Firsthand Experience - A N M Bazlur Rahman

Discover how JetBrains Junie EAP is helping my development workflow—automating repetitive coding tasks, helping build a website, and preparing a demo.

A N M Bazlur RahmanA N M Bazlur Rahman