Similar code,or connected code.
Not either or: Graphify plugs into Cursor over MCP. What the built-in index does well, and what a graph adds on top.
Nine rows.
Two of them go to Cursor, and one of those is the answer to both.
Two different questions.
An embedding index answers what looks like this, and it answers it without you doing anything at all. For finding the file you half remember, that is the right tool and there is nothing to improve on.
What it cannot do is follow a relationship. What breaks if I change this is a question about the caller of a caller, and no amount of similarity gets you there: the model is handed a few plausible snippets and asked to guess the rest. A graph walks it one edge at a time and hands back the route.
Nothing is replaced.
Graphify registers as an MCP server, so Cursor gains ten tools and loses nothing. The index stays on, the workflow is unchanged, and the agent reaches for the graph when the question is structural. The same graph answers in Claude Code and in the terminal, so it is not a thing you set up per editor.
Questions about running both
What Cursor users ask first.
No, and this is the one comparison here where the answer is use both. The built-in index keeps working exactly as before; Graphify is added as an MCP server, and the agent queries it when a question is about structure rather than similarity.
For a lot of work, yes. It is automatic, well integrated and good at surfacing code by similarity. Where it runs out of road is connected questions and auditability: you cannot inspect why a snippet was pulled in. That is the gap a typed graph fills.
Graphify sends nothing anywhere: parsing is local, the graph is on disk, there is no telemetry. Cursor keeps working the way you configured it. Graphify does not change that either way; it adds a local source of structured context.