Mimir vs Cursor

Mimir and Cursor aren't competing products. They're two halves of the same workflow. Mimir is 'Cursor for product management' — the same way Cursor transformed how developers write code, Mimir transforms how product teams decide what to build.

The handoff is concrete: Mimir analyzes customer feedback and generates implementation specs with discrete agent tasks. You copy those tasks into Cursor (or Claude Code, or Copilot) and the coding agent builds exactly what your customers need. Customer interview → Mimir recommendations → Mimir spec → Cursor implementation → shipped feature.

AI coding tools have solved the 'how to build' problem remarkably well. Give Cursor a clear spec and it can implement features, write tests, and refactor code at a pace that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

But the harder problem was always 'what to build.' Cursor can't read 20 customer interviews and tell you which feature to prioritize. It can't cross-reference support tickets with usage data to find root causes. It can't generate impact projections for competing product bets. That's the gap Mimir fills — the product intelligence that makes every line of code Cursor writes more valuable because it's solving the right problem.

Think of the modern product development stack: customer feedback flows into Mimir, which surfaces what matters and generates specs. Those specs flow into Cursor or Claude Code, which writes the implementation. The result: evidence-driven features built at AI speed.

Teams using both tools report that the bottleneck isn't building anymore — it's deciding. Cursor made development fast. Mimir makes the decisions that feed development fast too. The combination removes the human bottleneck from both sides of the product equation.