Banner that says "Comparing AI Agents on Unit Test Generation" with the logo of Tusk vs Cursor vs Claude Code

Tusk catches bugs other agents don't find

We ran Tusk, Cursor, and Claude Code on a benchmark PR containing a boundary condition bug and found that Tusk was the only agent that caught the edge case (in 90% of its runs).

/01

We run the tests we generate

More than code review

Tusk runs its generated tests and self-iterates on its output so you can be confident that its tests are checking for relevant edge cases. Other test generation and code review tools don't do this out of the box.

/02

Optimized for test generation quality

More compute used

69% of Tusk-generated tests are incorporated into PRs. We use more compute to reason through and iterate on test cases. AI-powered IDEs are optimized for latency as opposed to quality when generating tests.

/03

Customized to your codebase

More context-aware

Tusk automatically ingests business context from Jira/Linear as well as code patterns from your existing tests. This allows us to generate unit tests that are inline with your team’s testing best practices.

Ready to catch bugs before they get deployed?

Get access