Measured comparison · August 2026
Cursor Bugbot vs Ozone
These are the two strongest tools in the test and the detection difference between them is not statistically meaningful. Bugbot caught 66 of 82, Ozone 63. Running a paired test on the same vulnerabilities returns p = 0.68 — that is a tie, and we are not going to claim otherwise.
The difference that is statistically significant is noise. Bugbot flagged a vulnerability in already-patched code 42 times; Ozone did so 23 times. Paired, that gap holds at p = 0.003.
So: near-identical detection, roughly half the false alarms. That is the whole comparison.
| Tool | Vulnerabilities caught | False alarms | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cursor Bugbot | 66 of 82 | 42 | |
| Ozone | 63 of 82 | 23 |
OpenSSF CVE Benchmark, 82 real JavaScript and TypeScript vulnerabilities, each also shown patched to count false alarms. Competitors' findings are their own published output (DeepSource, April 2026); the grading is ours, applied identically to all ten and blind to which tool produced a finding.
Where Bugbot genuinely wins
It caught three vulnerabilities Ozone missed. On a set of 82 that is inside the margin of error, but it is not nothing, and if your priority is catching absolutely everything then Bugbot's posture — flag it and let the human decide — is the right posture.
If your team already works inside Cursor, the integration is immediate and the review appears where people already are. That is a real advantage this benchmark cannot measure.
What 42 false alarms costs
Every false alarm is an engineer reading a diff, following a data path, and concluding there was nothing there. Across 82 patched files, Bugbot did that 42 times and Ozone 23.
The failure mode is not the wasted hour, it is what happens after. A reviewer that is wrong often enough gets muted, and a muted reviewer's detection rate is zero regardless of what it scored on a benchmark.
This is also the number most published benchmarks omit, because it requires showing the tool code that has already been fixed — which doubles the size of the test and makes everyone's results look worse.
A caveat that cuts against our own number
27 of the 85 vulnerabilities in this dataset ship a 'patched' file that other, unshipped files were needed to actually fix. In those cases the code is still exploitable and a reviewer that says so is recorded as raising a false alarm.
That defect penalises whichever tool detects the most — which here means Bugbot first and Ozone second. Both false alarm counts above are therefore overstated, and we report the uncorrected figures anyway because they are the ones that are directly comparable with what is already published.
When to choose Cursor Bugbot
- You want the highest raw detection available and you have the review capacity to absorb the false alarms. It caught three more than Ozone.
- Your team lives in Cursor. Reviews arriving in the editor people already have open beats a marginally better score elsewhere.
- You are reviewing small, high-stakes diffs where a missed bug costs far more than a wasted investigation — the trade Bugbot is tuned for.
Common questions
- Is Ozone better than Cursor Bugbot?
- On detection they are statistically tied — Bugbot caught 66 of 82, Ozone 63, and a paired test returns p = 0.68. On false alarms Ozone is significantly better: 23 against Bugbot's 42, p = 0.003.
- How many false positives does Cursor Bugbot produce?
- Across 82 already-patched files in the OpenSSF CVE Benchmark, Cursor Bugbot flagged a vulnerability 42 times. Ozone did so 23 times on the same files.
Check the numbers yourself.
The harness, the fixtures, every raw finding and every grader verdict are published. Re-run it and tell us if you get something different.