Google Antigravity vs Cursor in 2026: Key Differences

Google Antigravity and Cursor are both tools for building software with AI agents, but the familiar "IDE versus IDE" comparison is now incomplete. Google separates its product into Antigravity 2.0, Antigravity IDE, and Antigravity CLI. Cursor 3 has a new agent workspace while retaining the Cursor IDE.

That difference matters. A developer choosing between them is not only choosing an editor. The real decision covers where agents run, how local and cloud work connect, which models are available, how usage is billed, and what happens to private code.

This comparison uses official product, pricing, privacy, and security documentation available on July 17, 2026. It does not rely on affiliate links or pretend that unlike quota systems can be reduced to one request count.

Short answer: Antigravity or Cursor?

Choose Google Antigravity if you want a free individual entry point, prefer Gemini models, need a separate command center for several local agents, or plan to run enterprise inference inside a Google Cloud project.

Choose Cursor if you want one interface for local, cloud, and remote agents, broader model choice, an established IDE workflow, self-hosted cloud agent workers, or more developed team administration.

For manual code editing, both companies still offer a VS Code-based IDE. For agent orchestration, they have moved in different directions:

• Antigravity 2.0 is a separate desktop application with no code editor. It coordinates agents across projects. Antigravity IDE remains a different application.
• Cursor 3 is a new multi-workspace agent interface that can hand work between local and cloud environments and switch back to the Cursor IDE.

Antigravity vs Cursor at a glance

What Google Antigravity includes in 2026

Google describes Antigravity 2.0 as a standalone desktop application for synchronous and asynchronous agents. It is not an IDE. A project can contain multiple folders or repositories, and agents can work through local folders or Git worktrees.

The product family has three relevant surfaces:

• Antigravity 2.0 for managing conversations, projects, artifacts, subagents, and scheduled work.
• Antigravity IDE for editing code in a VS Code-based environment with extensions from Open VSX.
• Antigravity CLI for running the same agent harness from a terminal.

This separation can be useful if you want to supervise several tasks without placing every conversation beside an editor pane. It also creates a product-choice question that older reviews miss: installing Antigravity 2.0 does not replace the IDE surface for close manual editing.

Antigravity agents can use project rules, skills, MCP servers, plugins, workflows, and hooks. Its browser integration uses a separate Chrome profile and can produce screenshots and recordings. Browser allowlists and denylists help control which URLs an agent may visit.

The desktop application, IDE, and CLI are available for macOS, Windows, and Linux. Consumer access has account, age, and geographic requirements, so check the current download page before planning a team rollout.

What Cursor includes in 2026

Cursor 3 adds a new interface for agents working across multiple repositories. Local and cloud agents appear in the same workspace, and a session can move from a local machine to the cloud or back again. The interface includes file inspection, diffs, staging, commits, and pull request work, with an option to return to the Cursor IDE.

Cursor now spans more surfaces than its original editor:

• the VS Code-based Cursor IDE;
• the Cursor 3 agent workspace;
• hosted cloud agents;
• web, CLI, and mobile access;
• self-hosted cloud agent workers on eligible team and enterprise setups.

Cursor supports rules, skills, MCP, plugins, hooks, automations, and an SDK. Cloud agents run in isolated virtual machines and can return screenshots, video, logs, and code changes for review. The built-in browser can interact with local web applications.

Cursor's desktop application is available for macOS, Windows, and Linux. Its CLI supports macOS and Linux, with Windows use documented through WSL. Web agents are available in a browser, while the iOS application was in public beta on paid plans when this article was checked.

Agent workflow: where the products differ

Local projects and worktrees

Antigravity makes the local or worktree choice explicit when an agent starts. Worktrees let concurrent tasks use separate Git working directories, which reduces direct collisions between agents. Antigravity 2.0 is designed to keep these projects visible from a dedicated management surface.

Cursor combines local agents, cloud agents, branches, and virtual machines in one agent workspace. Its handoff flow is the notable difference: a task can begin locally, continue in the cloud while the laptop is offline, and return to the local environment for final editing.

Browser and interface verification

Both products can operate a browser, but browser access should be treated as a permission boundary, not a convenience toggle. An agent that can browse, run commands, and read project files can also expose secrets or make unintended changes if the task is poorly scoped.

Antigravity provides a Browser Subagent with URL controls and a separate Chrome profile. Cursor cloud agents use an isolated desktop environment, while Cursor's browser includes interface editing and computer-use features. In either product, screenshots are evidence that a page rendered, not proof that its behavior, accessibility, or security is correct.

Reviewing and landing changes

Cursor places code review, diffs, commits, and pull request management close to the agent workspace. Antigravity focuses more heavily on agent artifacts and feedback, with the IDE or normal Git tooling available for detailed code review.

Whichever product runs the agent, keep each change small enough to inspect. Require tests, review the diff, scan dependencies, and retain a rollback path. A repository-wide task with one green test is too little evidence for acceptance.

Models and usage limits

Antigravity is Gemini-first. Its current model documentation lists Gemini access for Standard and Pro users, with eligible Ultra tiers adding selected third-party models. Enterprise access through Google Cloud uses specified Gemini models.

Google's general pricing page and dedicated model page do not present third-party model availability in exactly the same way. The narrower model documentation is the safer reference. Do not choose a plan based on an old screenshot or assume that a model shown elsewhere is included in the free tier.

Cursor uses models from several providers and its own Composer family. The exact picker changes. Teams can trade cost, latency, and reasoning profiles, while the different model prices make usage less predictable.

Neither vendor's limits should be summarized as a stable number of prompts:

• Antigravity says free capacity refreshes weekly. Paid plans receive a quota that refreshes every five hours within a weekly limit. Consumption depends on the work an agent performs.
• Cursor charges agent use against included value based on model inference prices. Model choice and token use determine how quickly the allowance is consumed.

A short code question, a multi-repository refactor, and a browser-driven test should not be counted as equivalent requests. Compare the monthly cost of your own task mix instead.

Antigravity and Cursor pricing

The following US month-to-month subscription prices were published when this comparison was checked. Taxes, regional prices, annual billing, promotions, included models, and plan terms can change.

Google Antigravity individual plans

• Standard: $0 per month, with basic weekly limits.
• Google AI Pro: $20 per month in Google's May 2026 plan announcement.
• Google AI Ultra options: $100 and $200 per month in the same announcement, with different quota levels.

Google does not publish one fixed prompt count for these plans. Read the current Antigravity plan documentation and model list together before subscribing.

Cursor individual plans

• Hobby: free, with limited Agent and Tab use.
• Pro: $20 per month, with $20 of included API agent usage.
• Pro+: $60 per month, with $70 of included API agent usage.
• Ultra: $200 per month, with $400 of included API agent usage.

Cursor documents two included pools. One covers API-model usage at the dollar amounts above. The other provides what Cursor describes as generous included usage for first-party models. For API models, Cursor adds a Cursor Token Rate of $0.25 per million tokens to the model's API price for included, on-demand, and bring-your-own-key usage. Auto and first-party models are exempt from that added rate. Cursor allows additional on-demand usage after the included amount. Read the current pricing and usage documentation, the company's usage-pool explanation, and your dashboard for the model mix you expect to run.

Privacy and code handling

This is the part of the comparison that should influence a production decision more than a feature checklist.

Antigravity consumer accounts

Google's Antigravity data-collection settings let a user disable telemetry. When telemetry is enabled, Google says interactions may be collected to evaluate, develop, and improve Antigravity and supporting models. The settings and FAQ pages checked for this comparison do not state a consumer zero-data-retention guarantee comparable to Cursor's Privacy Mode guarantee.

That does not prove consumer data is used in a particular way. It means a team should read the current terms and settings rather than assuming that local execution makes the whole AI request local.

Antigravity enterprise accounts

Google's enterprise integration routes Antigravity 2.0 and CLI inference through a customer's Google Cloud project under Google Cloud terms. Google says prompts, responses, code, and related telemetry are not stored outside the customer's private environment. Global, EU, and US endpoints are documented.

This enterprise boundary does not currently include Antigravity IDE. That limitation is easy to miss and should be verified during a procurement review.

Cursor Privacy Mode

Cursor's Data Use and Privacy overview says that, with Privacy Mode enabled, Customer Data is not used for training and model providers operate under zero-data-retention agreements. The page notes an exception for abuse and risk classifiers that may retain flagged data for investigation under provider policies.

Privacy Mode does not mean requests stay on the laptop. Cursor says requests still pass through its backend, including when a user supplies an API key. Codebase indexing uploads chunks to compute embeddings. Plaintext is removed after the request, while embeddings and metadata may be stored.

Cursor self-hosted workers

Cursor says its self-hosted cloud agents keep source code, execution, and build artifacts in customer infrastructure. Cursor still provides orchestration, model access, and the user interface. It is a self-hosted execution option, not a fully self-hosted Cursor backend and model stack.

Cursor's self-hosted pool documentation distinguishes personal workers available to Teams users from centrally managed shared pools, which require Enterprise and a service-account API key.

Security controls and default risk

Under the Antigravity IDE's documented defaults, workspace file operations are allowed, while unconfigured terminal commands and out-of-workspace access require approval. In that desktop IDE, terminal sandboxing is disabled by default and is currently in preview on macOS and Linux, with Windows support listed as coming soon. The IDE's Strict Mode enables the sandbox and denies network access. These platform notes apply to the IDE surface, not Antigravity CLI. Review the effective preset before an agent receives credentials or production access.

Cursor supports local-agent sandboxing on macOS and Linux, and on Windows through WSL2. Its auto-review flow can allow configured or sandboxed actions, send uncertain actions to a classifier, or ask the user. Cursor also documents security controls and third-party assessments, including a SOC 2 Type II report available on request.

Treat these controls as risk reduction, then apply independent checks to either product:

• exclude secrets and production credentials from the workspace;
• use a branch or worktree for each task;
• limit network and terminal permissions;
• review dependency and configuration changes;
• run tests, static analysis, and security checks outside the agent's own narrative;
• require human approval before merge and deployment.

Match the product to the constraint

A Gemini-first or Google Cloud-governed workflow

• you want to evaluate agent workflows without paying for an individual plan;
• Gemini is your preferred model family;
• a separate desktop command center for local projects matches how you supervise agents;
• your enterprise workload already belongs inside a Google Cloud project;
• you want Antigravity 2.0 and CLI under Google Cloud governance and consumption billing.

A team that needs model choice and local-to-cloud handoff

• you want local, hosted cloud, and remote agent work in one interface;
• you regularly switch among model providers;
• you want an agent session to move between local and cloud environments;
• your team needs SSO, SCIM, usage controls, audit features, or self-hosted workers;
• you want code review and pull request work close to the agent surface.

Neither product needs to replace the primary editor

You may not need either product as the primary editor. Antigravity CLI can work beside another IDE, and Cursor's cloud or web surfaces may handle delegated tasks while a developer keeps a separate local setup. The right choice can be a narrow tool boundary, not a complete workflow migration.

A fair five-task evaluation

Marketing demos are difficult to compare. Run both products against the same disposable repository, task descriptions, acceptance checks, and permission limits.

1. Repository explanation: ask each tool to map one feature across files. Check every cited path.
2. Small bug fix: provide a failing test and require the smallest passing diff.
3. Multi-file change: add a modest feature with explicit acceptance criteria.
4. Browser verification: run the local application and verify one user flow, including an error state.
5. Review task: ask the agent to critique a prepared pull request, then compare its findings with a human review and static tools.

Record setup time, total paid usage, incorrect edits, permission prompts, review time, and defects found after the agent declares completion. Score correctness and review cost instead of lines generated. A small correct diff usually has more value than an impressive large one.

A decision rule you can defend

Antigravity is likely to fit a Gemini-first developer who values a free plan, a separate local agent command center, or a Google Cloud enterprise boundary. Cursor is likely to fit a team that needs multi-model selection, local-to-cloud handoff, hosted or self-hosted agent workers, SSO, SCIM, and centralized usage controls.

The products overlap, but their boundaries now differ enough that a simple feature count is misleading. Choose the environment whose data boundary, review workflow, and billing model you can explain before an agent touches a private repository.