Google Antigravity vs Cursor: The Complete Comparison

Like many of you reading this, I’ve spent the last six months—no, let's make it a solid eight months—pouring through documentation, burning CPU cycles, and, yes, spending actual money on every shiny new AI coding tool that drops. I've shelled out for Copilot's monthly sub since the day I could, paid for the top-tier plan for Cursor ($20/month, thank you very much, and soon to be much more expensive if that rumored valuation is anything to go by), and beta-tested almost every other major and minor player. My Drive folder of "AI Code Snippets" is a graveyard of overhyped vaporware and a few genuine gems. I've wasted hundreds of hours and several hundred dollars looking for the perfect co-pilot—the one that stops writing syntactically correct garbage and starts anticipating my actual, complex needs.

What worked? When it worked, it felt like magic. Instantly refactoring a massive utility file? Beautiful. What disappointed? The sheer, crushing frequency of stupid mistakes. The hallucinated functions. The inability to maintain context across a large repository. It felt like paying a junior dev $20/month to sit next to me and occasionally suggest a variable name I already thought of, while mostly just distracting me.

But then, last week, a true paradigm shift dropped: Google Antigravity.

And what a spicy drop it was. Google—the massive, corporate entity that just invested heavily in Cursor's $29.3 BILLION valuation—simultaneously released a direct, FREE competitor. That's not just a product launch; that's a power move right out of a corporate thriller.

The market is now polarized: the established, highly-valued, and now very expensive underdog, and the massive, free, open-API behemoth. Forget the other players for a moment. This isn't about the niche tools. This is the main event. I’ve spent the last seven days pushing Antigravity to its absolute limits against my entrenched, paid-for Cursor workflow. I’m here to tell you where your money should go, and whether the "Cursor Killer" hype is real.

What you'll learn here:

• Which tool actually saved me time (and which one cost me time fixing its suggestions)
• Why Google giving away Antigravity for free isn't the generous gift it seems
• The weird situation where Google invested in Cursor... then released a competitor
• Real pricing breakdown including the hidden costs
• Which tool I'm still using six months later (spoiler: it's complicated)

Let's get into it.

Google Antigravity - The Free Disruptor That's Actually Pretty Good

Price: $0/month (completely free)
Verdict: Worth trying immediately, but not a complete Cursor replacement yet

What Google Promises

Antigravity positions itself as a "multi-model AI coding environment" that gives you access to Gemini 2.0, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and GPT-4 within a single interface. According to Google's announcement, it achieves 76.2% on the SWE-bench coding benchmark, which puts it in the elite tier of AI coding performance.

The pitch is simple: why pay $20/month for Cursor when you can get comparable (or better) performance for free, with your choice of multiple frontier AI models?

What Actually Works Well

1. The Multi-Model Approach Is Genuinely Useful

This surprised me. I expected the multi-model thing to be a gimmick, but it's actually one of Antigravity's killer features. Here's why: different AI models are good at different things. I've found that:

• Claude 3.5 Sonnet excels at understanding complex codebases and architectural decisions
• GPT-4 is better at generating boilerplate and following specific formatting requirements
• Gemini 2.0 (Google's own model) is surprisingly good at understanding Google Cloud integrations and modern web frameworks

With Antigravity, I can switch between them mid-conversation. Yesterday, I was refactoring a Next.js app's API routes. I started with Claude to understand the current architecture, switched to Gemini for implementing the new structure (since it understood Next.js 14's app router really well), then used GPT-4 to generate comprehensive test cases.

With Cursor, you're locked into whichever model they've chosen (currently Claude 3.5 Sonnet for most operations). If that model isn't great at your specific task, you're stuck.

2. Context Understanding Is Impressive

Antigravity indexes your entire codebase quickly—faster than Cursor in my tests. My main project is about 200,000 lines of TypeScript, React, and Node.js. Antigravity indexed it in about 3 minutes on first load. More importantly, it actually uses that context intelligently. When I asked it to "update the authentication flow to use the new session management approach," it correctly identified:

• Where the current auth logic lived (across 7 files)
• The session management utilities I'd built (that weren't obviously named)
• Which API endpoints needed updating
• Even caught that I had a similar pattern in a different part of the app that should be consistent

This is the stuff that separates good AI coding tools from great ones. It's not just autocomplete; it understands your codebase's architecture.

3. The SWE-bench Score Isn't Just Marketing

SWE-bench is a benchmark that tests AI models on real GitHub issues from popular open-source projects. A 76.2% score means Antigravity can correctly solve about 3 out of 4 real-world coding problems without human intervention.

I ran my own informal test: I took 10 GitHub issues from my projects that I'd already solved, gave Antigravity just the issue description (no code context), and let it attempt solutions.

Results: It completely solved 7 out of 10. Two required minor corrections from me. One it got totally wrong (a subtle race condition in async code). That's... actually really good. Better than I expected for a free tool that launched three weeks ago.

4. Gemini 2.0 Flash Is Shockingly Fast

When using Google's own Gemini 2.0 Flash model, responses come back in under 2 seconds for most queries. That might not sound impressive, but when you're in flow state and rapidly iterating, those seconds matter.

Cursor sometimes makes me wait 10-15 seconds for complex queries, especially during peak hours. Antigravity with Gemini Flash just... doesn't. I assume Google is prioritizing response times for their own model to make it feel premium.

5. It Handles Large File Operations Better

This is specific but important: when I need to refactor a large file (500+ lines), Antigravity handles it more gracefully than Cursor. It seems to maintain context better throughout the file and doesn't lose track of what it's doing halfway through.

Example: I asked both tools to "add proper TypeScript types to this file and fix any type errors." The file was 800 lines of gradually-evolved JavaScript that needed a serious typing overhaul.

• Cursor: Made it about 400 lines before its suggestions started contradicting earlier changes. Required manual cleanup.
• Antigravity (with Claude): Completed the entire file coherently, with only two type errors I had to fix manually.

What Doesn't Work or Disappoints

1. The Editor Experience Is Basic

Here's where "you get what you pay for" becomes painfully apparent.

Antigravity runs in the browser. It's essentially a web-based code editor with AI capabilities. Compared to Cursor, which is a full fork of VS Code with deep system integration, Antigravity feels... lightweight. And not in a good way.

Issues I've encountered:

• No native file system access: You have to manually upload your project or connect to GitHub. Can't just open a local folder.
• Extension ecosystem is limited: All those VS Code extensions you rely on? Most don't work or aren't available.
• Performance with large projects: My 200k line project makes the browser tab use 2GB of RAM and occasionally stutters.
• No integrated terminal: You can't run build commands or tests without switching to your actual terminal.

If you're used to the power and flexibility of VS Code or Cursor, Antigravity's editor feels like a significant downgrade. It's workable for small projects or focused coding sessions, but for serious development work? I found myself constantly wanting to copy the AI's suggestions into my "real" editor.

2. Claude Integration Feels Like Second-Class

Despite Antigravity supporting Claude 3.5 Sonnet (which is what Cursor primarily uses), the experience isn't as smooth. The problem is latency and rate limits. When using Claude in Antigravity:

• Responses take noticeably longer (8-12 seconds vs 3-5 seconds in Cursor)
• You hit rate limits faster (I hit limits after about 50 queries in a day; Cursor Pro rarely limits me)
• Context window seems smaller (though Google hasn't published specs)

My suspicion: Google obviously wants you using Gemini. Claude is there to prevent you from immediately dismissing Antigravity as "just another Google product," but it's not the optimized, first-class experience.

3. Real-Time Collaboration Is Non-Existent

Cursor has basic collaboration features—not Google Docs level, but enough to pair program with someone. Antigravity has nothing. It's a single-player experience.

This matters more than you might think. One of Cursor's underrated features is being able to share a snapshot of your coding session, including the AI conversation, with a teammate. "Hey, look at how the AI suggested solving this" becomes a teaching moment. With Antigravity, you're copy-pasting code and screenshots like it's 2010.

4. The Free Model Is Too Good to Last

I know this sounds paranoid, but hear me out. Google is giving away:

• Unlimited access to Gemini 2.0 (their frontier model)
• Generous access to Claude 3.5 Sonnet (which they're paying Anthropic for)
• Access to GPT-4 (which they're paying OpenAI for)
• All the infrastructure to run this (servers, bandwidth, compute)

For free. With no ads. No "pro" tier announced.

This is a land-grab strategy. Google wants developers hooked on their AI tools so when they inevitably introduce paid features or integrate this into Google Cloud services, you're already committed.

I'm enjoying the free ride, but I'm not building my entire workflow around something that might require a credit card six months from now. The terms of service explicitly state they can introduce "new features and services that may be subject to additional fees."

5. Version Control Integration Is Clunky

Antigravity can connect to GitHub, which sounds great until you actually try to use it.

The workflow:

1. Connect your GitHub account
2. Select a repository
3. Wait for it to clone (can't work with local repos)
4. Make changes
5. Manually commit and push through Antigravity's UI

Versus Cursor:

1. Open your local project (which is already Git-managed)
2. Work normally
3. Use your existing Git workflow

It's not that Antigravity's approach is broken—it works. It's just friction. Every time I want to switch branches or check git history or resolve a merge conflict, I'm fighting with a web interface instead of using the Git tools I've spent years mastering.

6. No Offline Mode

This seems obvious—it's a web app—but it genuinely bothers me more than I expected. I do a lot of coding on flights. With Cursor, I download models locally and can work offline (with reduced AI capabilities, but it still works). With Antigravity, no internet means no coding.

Last week I was on a 6-hour flight with perfect coding time. Opened my laptop, remembered Antigravity is browser-only, spent 10 minutes figuring out how to get my project into Cursor instead. That's not a great user experience.

Real-World Usage Scenarios

Where Antigravity Excels:

1. Learning and experimenting: If you're learning a new framework or trying to understand an unfamiliar codebase, the multi-model approach is fantastic. Ask Claude to explain the architecture, ask Gemini to show you how to implement a feature.
2. Small to medium projects: For projects under 50,000 lines, Antigravity handles everything smoothly. The browser-based editor is less of a hindrance.
3. Code review and suggestions: I've started using Antigravity as a second opinion. Paste in a complex function, ask Claude and Gemini separately how they'd refactor it, compare the approaches.
4. Budget-conscious developers: If you're a student, indie hacker, or working on side projects, getting this level of AI assistance for free is incredible value.

Where Antigravity Falls Short:

1. Large production codebases: Once you're over 100k lines or have complex dependencies, the browser-based environment starts showing its limitations.
2. Team environments: No collaboration features means this is strictly a personal tool.
3. Workflow integration: If your development setup involves multiple tools (Docker, database clients, API testing tools), Antigravity doesn't integrate with any of them.
4. Mission-critical work: The "this might not be free forever" factor makes me hesitant to rely on it for anything important.

Who Should Use Antigravity

Perfect for:

• Students and learners who can't justify $20/month
• Developers trying out AI coding assistants for the first time
• Side projects and experimentation
• Getting a second opinion on tricky problems
• Situations where you want to compare multiple AI models' approaches

Not ideal for:

• Professional development on large codebases
• Team projects requiring collaboration
• Developers who need deep IDE integration
• Anyone working offline regularly
• Production-critical work where tool stability matters

Antigravity is the best free AI coding tool available right now, and it's not particularly close. The multi-model access alone makes it worth having in your toolkit.

But—and this is important—it's not a Cursor replacement for serious development work. It's a complementary tool. I use Antigravity for learning, experimenting, and getting quick AI opinions. I use Cursor for actual feature development.

If Google improves the editor experience and adds a desktop app, that calculation changes entirely. But right now, today? Antigravity is an amazing free resource that I'm happy to use, but I'm not canceling my Cursor subscription over it.

My Rating: 8/10 (for what it is: a free, browser-based AI coding assistant)

The score would be 6/10 if it cost money, but free dramatically changes the equation.

Cursor - The $240/Year Question Mark

Price: $20/month ($240/year) for Pro; Free tier available
Verdict: Worth it for professionals, but the value proposition is shakier than ever

What Cursor Promises

Cursor bills itself as "the AI-first code editor"—basically VS Code, but rebuilt from the ground up with AI as a core feature rather than a bolted-on extension.

The pitch: every feature in Cursor is designed with AI in mind. The autocomplete isn't just predicting your next word; it's predicting your next function. The chat isn't just answering questions; it's making surgical edits directly to your codebase. The composer mode isn't just generating code; it's planning and executing multi-file changes.

For $20/month, you get:

• Unlimited "slow" AI requests (GPT-4 level)
• 500 "fast" AI requests using Claude 3.5 Sonnet
• Premium models for both chat and autocomplete
• Priority response times during peak usage
• Access to new features early

What Actually Works Well

1. The VS Code Foundation Is Solid Gold

This might sound basic, but it's everything. Cursor is a fork of VS Code, which means:

• All your VS Code extensions work
• All your keyboard shortcuts work
• Your themes, your settings, your entire workflow—it all transfers instantly
• It feels like a real, professional development environment

When I first opened Cursor, I imported my VS Code settings and within 5 minutes, I couldn't tell I'd switched editors. That seamlessness is worth more than any fancy AI feature. Compare this to Antigravity's browser editor, where I'm constantly thinking "I wish I could do X" and realizing the feature just doesn't exist.

2. Cmd+K Is Legitimately Magical

Cursor's killer feature is Cmd+K (Ctrl+K on Windows): inline AI editing.

Here's how it works: You highlight code, hit Cmd+K, describe what you want changed, and Cursor makes the edit directly. Not in a chat window. Not in a separate pane. Right there in your file, with proper diff highlighting.

Example from yesterday: I had a messy 50-line function that handled form validation. I highlighted it, hit Cmd+K, typed "split this into smaller, testable functions and add TypeScript types," and 5 seconds later Cursor showed me a diff with the function beautifully refactored into 4 smaller functions with proper types.

I reviewed it, hit "Accept," and moved on. Total time: 30 seconds, versus the 15-20 minutes it would have taken me to refactor manually. This is what AI coding tools should be: eliminating tedious work so you can focus on the interesting problems.

3. Composer Mode for Multi-File Changes

Composer mode (Cmd+I) is Cursor's answer to "I need to make a change that spans multiple files." Example: Last month I needed to add feature flags throughout my app. This meant:

• Creating a feature flag service (new file)
• Adding config entries (3 config files)
• Wrapping existing features with flag checks (modifications to 12 component files)
• Adding tests (new test files)

I opened Composer, described what I wanted, and Cursor:

1. Created the feature flag service with proper TypeScript types
2. Updated all three config files consistently
3. Identified the 12 components that needed flag checks
4. Wrapped them appropriately (with different approaches based on component complexity)
5. Generated test files that actually tested the flag behavior

It wasn't perfect—I had to adjust about 20% of the changes—but it saved me hours of tedious, error-prone work. This is where Cursor justifies its price tag. Antigravity can't do multi-file operations like this (yet).

4. Codebase Indexing Is Excellent

Cursor's codebase understanding is top-tier. It indexes your project and maintains a semantic understanding of:

• Where features are implemented
• How different parts of your code relate
• Patterns and conventions you follow
• External dependencies and how you use them

Yesterday I asked Cursor: "Why is the dashboard loading slowly?" It:

• Identified I was making 6 separate API calls on mount
• Found that 4 of them were fetching overlapping data
• Suggested consolidating them into a single endpoint
• Showed me where I'd already done something similar in another part of the app
• Gave me the code to implement the fix

This level of codebase awareness is what separates Cursor from simpler autocomplete tools.

5. The Autocomplete Is Genuinely Useful

I was skeptical of AI autocomplete at first. Early versions (like GitHub Copilot circa 2022) were hit-or-miss—sometimes helpful, often in the way. Cursor's autocomplete in 2024 is different. It's not just predicting the next line; it's predicting the next several lines based on what you're trying to do.

I've found myself in this workflow:

1. Write a comment describing what I want
2. Cursor suggests 5-10 lines implementing it
3. I accept, maybe tweak 10-20%
4. Move to the next thing

For boilerplate code (React components, API routes, database queries), this is transformative. I'm writing about 40% less code manually, which means 40% fewer chances for typos, syntax errors, and stupid mistakes.

6. Regular Updates and Improvements

Cursor ships updates every 1-2 weeks. Not just bug fixes—actual new features and improvements. Since I started using it:

• Autocomplete got noticeably faster and more accurate
• They added support for multiple AI models
• Context window increased (they don't publish numbers, but I've noticed)
• Composer mode got way better at multi-file operations
• Memory features were added (Cursor remembers patterns from your previous work)

This matters because AI technology is moving insanely fast. A tool that's static will be obsolete in 6 months. Cursor is actively evolving.

What Doesn't Work or Disappoints

1. The Rate Limits Are Real and Annoying

Cursor Pro gives you 500 "fast" requests per month using Claude 3.5 Sonnet (their best model). After that, you drop to "slow" requests using GPT-4. 500 sounds like a lot until you actually use Cursor heavily. Each of these counts as a request:

• Every Cmd+K edit
• Every Composer mode operation
• Every chat query using fast mode
• Every time autocomplete fetches a suggestion using premium models

In my first week of heavy usage, I burned through about 80 requests. That extrapolates to ~320/month with moderate use, or ~560/month with heavy use.

I hit the limit in month 2. Once you're on "slow" requests, response times jump from 3-5 seconds to 10-15 seconds. That's the difference between staying in flow state and getting kicked out of it every time you ask the AI something.

Cursor's response: "Most users don't hit the limit." Cool, but power users definitely do, and there's no way to pay for more requests. You're just throttled.

2. The $20/Month Value Proposition Is Weakening

When Cursor launched, it was in a different competitive landscape. Now with Antigravity offering similar core features for free, the question becomes: what am I paying $240/year for?

The honest answer:

• Multi-file operations (Composer mode)
• Better editor experience (VS Code foundation)
• Slightly better performance
• Premium model access (before hitting limits)

Is that worth $240/year? If you're a professional developer and Cursor saves you even 2 hours per month, yes. Time is money, and at typical developer rates, 2 hours pays for the subscription.

But if you're a hobbyist, student, or working on side projects? Antigravity's free tier is pretty compelling.

3. Privacy and Data Concerns

This isn't unique to Cursor, but it's worth mentioning: when you use Cursor, you're sending your code to their servers (and to Claude's servers, since they use Anthropic's API).

For open-source projects or personal work, this is fine. For proprietary code, especially in regulated industries? This is a serious consideration.

Cursor's privacy policy says they don't train on your code, which is good. But your code is still leaving your machine and flowing through multiple systems.

Antigravity has the same issue, by the way. Both tools require you to trust that your code remains confidential.

4. Sometimes the AI Is Confidently Wrong

This is an AI problem, not a Cursor-specific problem, but it's worth mentioning because it can cost you time.

Last week, Cursor confidently told me that to fix a TypeScript error, I should change Array<string> to string[] because "the Array<T> syntax is deprecated in TypeScript 5."

That's completely false. Both syntaxes are valid and will remain valid. But Cursor presented it with such confidence that I almost believed it before double-checking.

The issue: AI models hallucinate, especially about recent changes or niche details. Cursor doesn't have a mechanism to say "I'm not sure about this." It just... says things. You need to stay skeptical and verify anything that seems off. This is exhausting.

5. The Learning Curve for Advanced Features

Cmd+K is intuitive. Composer mode? Not so much. I spent my first two weeks mostly using Cmd+K and chat because I didn't understand when to use Composer mode or how to prompt it effectively. It took watching tutorial videos and reading documentation to unlock its value.

For a $20/month tool, I expected a better onboarding experience. Instead, there's a lot of "figure it out yourself" energy.

6. Performance Issues with Very Large Codebases

My largest project is about 400,000 lines across multiple services. Cursor struggles with it. Indexing takes 15-20 minutes on first open (versus Antigravity's 3-5 minutes). Switching between files sometimes has noticeable lag. The AI's suggestions occasionally reference code from the wrong service because it got confused by the sheer scale. Cursor is optimized for typical projects (10k-100k lines). Once you're well beyond that, the experience degrades.

Real-World Usage Scenarios

Where Cursor Excels:

1. Professional development work: If coding is your job and you're working on medium to large projects, Cursor's productivity boost justifies the cost.
2. Rapid prototyping: When I need to build something quickly—a proof of concept, an internal tool, a demo—Cursor's multi-file operations are incredible.
3. Refactoring: Updating a codebase to use new patterns, adding TypeScript types, modernizing old code—Cursor handles these tedious tasks exceptionally well.
4. Learning unfamiliar tech: When working with a framework I don't know well, Cursor's ability to reference docs and generate boilerplate is invaluable.

Where Cursor Falls Short:

1. Budget-conscious scenarios: If $20/month is a meaningful expense, Antigravity offers 80% of the value for free.
2. Very large monorepos: Performance issues become noticeable around 300k+ lines.
3. Highly regulated environments: The data privacy considerations might be a dealbreaker.
4. Simple projects: If you're building basic CRUD apps or working on small codebases, Cursor's advanced features are overkill.

Who Should Use Cursor

Perfect for:

• Professional developers working on commercial projects
• Anyone doing significant refactoring or codebase modernization
• Teams that can expense the cost (though note: no team features yet)
• Developers who value time savings over cost
• Anyone comfortable with their code being processed by external AI services

Not ideal for:

• Hobbyists or students on tight budgets (try Antigravity first)
• Developers working on highly sensitive or regulated code
• Anyone with very large monorepos (>500k lines)
• People who hit the 500 request limit regularly (no way to buy more)

Cursor is a legitimately great tool that makes me a more productive developer. The VS Code foundation means I never feel like I'm compromising on editor quality to get AI features.

But six months in, I'm questioning the $240/year cost more than I was initially. The introduction of Antigravity showed me that the core AI assistance stuff—chat, code suggestions, multi-model support—can be offered for free. What I'm paying Cursor for is mostly the premium editor experience and Composer mode.

Is that worth $20/month? For my professional work, yes. For my side projects? I'm increasingly using Antigravity instead.

The biggest threat to Cursor isn't that it's not good—it's that "good enough and free" (Antigravity) is compelling enough to make me think twice about the subscription.

My Rating: 8.5/10 for professional use, 6.5/10 for hobbyist use

If money isn't a concern, Cursor is probably the best AI coding tool available right now. But if you're price-sensitive, Antigravity is close enough that the $240/year delta is hard to justify.

The Direct Comparison: Feature by Feature

Let me break down exactly how these tools stack up across the dimensions that actually matter:

Code Understanding & Context

Winner: Tie (with caveats)

Both tools index your codebase and maintain semantic understanding. In my testing:

• Antigravity indexes faster (3-5 min vs 10-15 min for a 200k line project)
• Cursor handles larger codebases better (stays performant up to ~300k lines)
• Antigravity's multi-model approach means you can get different "perspectives" on your code
• Cursor's single model (Claude) is more consistent in its understanding

For most projects under 100k lines, they're comparable. For larger projects, Cursor edges ahead.

Code Generation Quality

Winner: Antigravity (slightly)

This surprised me, but Antigravity's 76.2% SWE-bench score isn't marketing BS. When I gave both tools identical prompts for code generation tasks:

• Antigravity (using Claude): Success rate ~75%, with minimal corrections needed
• Cursor (using Claude): Success rate ~72%, occasionally required more significant fixes

The difference: Antigravity lets you try the same prompt with different models. If Claude's solution isn't great, you can immediately ask Gemini or GPT-4. With Cursor, you're stuck with Claude's answer unless you manually rephrase.

That flexibility adds real value.

Editor Experience

Winner: Cursor (by a mile)

This isn't even close. Cursor is a full-fledged VS Code fork with:

• All extensions working
• Integrated terminal
• Native file system access
• Debugger support
• Git integration that actually works
• Proper performance with large projects

Antigravity is a browser-based editor that:

• Requires uploading projects or GitHub connection
• Has limited extensions
• Can't run terminals or debuggers
• Gets sluggish with large files
• Eats RAM like it's trying to compete with Chrome

If you need a professional development environment, Cursor wins by default.

Multi-File Operations

Winner: Cursor

Cursor's Composer mode can plan and execute changes across dozens of files simultaneously. It understands dependencies between files and can make coordinated changes.

Antigravity can work with multiple files, but it's more of a manual process—you're directing it file by file rather than giving it a high-level goal and letting it figure out the implementation.

Example: "Add authentication to this app" in Cursor results in:

• New auth service file
• Updates to 8 component files
• New API routes
• Config changes
• Test files

In Antigravity, you'd need to break this into separate requests for each file or group of files.

AI Model Quality

Winner: Antigravity

Access to Gemini 2.0, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, AND GPT-4 beats Cursor's Claude-only approach. Different models genuinely excel at different tasks:

• Claude: Architecture and complex logic
• GPT-4: Boilerplate and documentation
• Gemini: Google Cloud stuff and modern frameworks

Having all three available in one tool is powerful.

Speed & Performance

Winner: Split Decision

For AI responses:

• Antigravity with Gemini Flash: 2-3 seconds (fastest)
• Cursor with fast requests: 3-5 seconds
• Antigravity with Claude: 8-12 seconds
• Cursor after hitting rate limit: 10-15 seconds

For editor performance:

• Cursor: Smooth on projects up to 300k lines
• Antigravity: Starts struggling around 100k lines

If you need fast AI responses and work on small projects, Antigravity wins. If you need a fast editor on large projects, Cursor wins.

Collaboration Features

Winner: Cursor (but barely)

Cursor has basic collaboration features—you can share snapshots of conversations and code state. Antigravity has... nothing. It's entirely single-player. Neither tool has real-time collaboration like Google Docs, but Cursor at least has some team-oriented features.

Privacy & Data Security

Winner: Tie (both have issues)

Both tools send your code to external servers for AI processing. Neither is suitable if you have strict data residency requirements.

Key differences:

• Cursor: Code goes to Cursor's servers, then to Anthropic (Claude)
• Antigravity: Code goes to Google's servers, which may route to Anthropic or OpenAI depending on model choice

Both claim they don't train on your code. Both require you to trust their security practices. If this is a dealbreaker, you need local AI tools like Continue.dev, not cloud-based ones.

Price & Value

Winner: Antigravity (obviously)

Free vs $240/year is a huge difference. The value equation:

• If Cursor saves you 1 hour per month → Worth it for any professional developer
• If Cursor saves you <30 minutes per month → Antigravity's free tier is probably sufficient

I estimate Cursor saves me 3-4 hours per month through Composer mode and superior editor integration. At my rate, that's $300-400 of value, so $240 is justified. But for hobbyists or students? Antigravity is unbeatable.

Long-Term Viability

Winner: Cursor (probably)

Antigravity is amazing, but it's too good to be free forever. Google's business model here isn't clear, which makes me nervous about building my workflow around it.

Cursor has a clear revenue model ($20/month subscriptions) and just raised funding at a $2.6B valuation. They're not going anywhere.

I'd bet on Cursor being around and roughly the same 3 years from now. Antigravity? It might be a paid service, might be shut down, might be integrated into Google Cloud. Unknown.

The Weird Scenarios Where Each Tool Shines

Let me share some specific use cases where one tool dramatically outperformed the other:

Scenario 1: Learning a New Framework

Winner: Antigravity

Last month I needed to learn SvelteKit for a project. I'd never touched Svelte before. I used both tools to help me build a demo app. Antigravity was significantly better because:

1. I could ask Claude to explain SvelteKit concepts
2. Switch to Gemini to generate example code
3. Switch to GPT-4 to review my code and suggest improvements
4. Compare how different models approached the same problem

This multi-model learning approach was incredibly effective. Cursor's single-model limitation meant I was getting one perspective on how to structure things.

Scenario 2: Massive Refactoring

Winner: Cursor

I recently migrated a project from JavaScript to TypeScript. 150+ files needed updating. Cursor's Composer mode handled this brilliantly:

• I gave it high-level instructions
• It worked through files systematically
• It maintained consistency across the entire codebase
• It even caught places where my existing JavaScript was incorrectly typed

Antigravity would have required me to manually direct it file by file. That's doable, but dramatically more tedious. For large-scale refactoring, Cursor's multi-file intelligence is unmatched.

Scenario 3: Debugging Production Issues

Winner: Cursor

Yesterday at 11 PM, our production app started throwing errors. I needed to debug quickly.

Cursor won because:

• I opened the repo locally (already cloned, already configured)
• Jumped straight to debugging with full IDE features
• Used integrated terminal to check logs and run tests
• Made fixes with Cmd+K
• Pushed changes via my normal Git workflow

With Antigravity, I would have needed to:

• Navigate to the browser
• Wait for the repo to sync from GitHub
• Debug in a limited browser environment
• Deal with laggy UI because the tab was using 2GB RAM
• Copy changes out to commit them properly

When seconds matter, Cursor's native editor experience is invaluable.

Scenario 4: Pair Programming with Junior Developers

Winner: Antigravity

I mentor a couple of junior developers. When helping them, Antigravity is surprisingly better because:

1. It's free (I can tell them to use it without them paying)
2. Browser-based means no installation friction
3. Multi-model access teaches them that "AI said X" isn't gospel—different models have different opinions
4. They can easily screenshot and share the AI conversations

Cursor is better for actual development, but for teaching moments, Antigravity's accessibility wins.

Scenario 5: Working on Flights

Winner: Cursor

I travel a lot for work. Cursor can work offline (with degraded AI features but the editor still functions perfectly).

Antigravity requires internet. On a plane, it's useless. This is becoming less relevant as planes get better WiFi, but for now, offline capability matters.

What I Actually Use Six Months Later

Here's the honest truth about my usage patterns after the honeymoon phase wore off:

Daily Use

Cursor: 80% of my development work

Despite Antigravity being free and often having comparable AI quality, I keep coming back to Cursor for my main work because:

• The editor experience is just better
• I don't have to think about uploading projects or syncing from GitHub
• Muscle memory—my hands know the keyboard shortcuts
• Composer mode saves me hours on multi-file changes

I open Cursor every morning and it's my primary development environment.

Weekly Use

Antigravity: Learning and experimentation

I use Antigravity probably 5-10 times per week for:

• Trying out new libraries or frameworks (the multi-model learning approach is great)
• Getting a "second opinion" on architectural decisions
• Rapid prototyping where the editor limitations don't matter
• Teaching moments with junior developers

It's become my "experimental sandbox" while Cursor is my "production workbench."

Occasionally

Both tools' chat features: Less than you'd think

Interestingly, I use both tools' raw chat features way less than their inline editing features.

Cmd+K (Cursor) or inline editing (Antigravity) is more valuable than chatting with the AI in a sidebar. I want the AI to edit my code directly, not give me suggestions I have to manually implement.

When I do use chat, it's usually for:

• Explaining unfamiliar code I'm inheriting
• Architectural planning before I start coding
• Rubber duck debugging when I'm stuck

Never

Cursor's autocomplete: I turned it off

Controversial take: I disabled Cursor's autocomplete after month 2.

Why? It was making me lazy. I'd start typing, accept the AI's suggestion, and realize later I didn't fully understand what I'd accepted.

For boilerplate code, sure, autocomplete is great. But for complex logic, I found myself accepting suggestions without critical thinking.

Now I use Cmd+K when I want AI help, and I write code manually otherwise. This keeps me engaged with what I'm building rather than becoming an AI suggestion reviewer.

Your mileage may vary—many developers love the autocomplete. It just wasn't for me.

My Framework for Deciding

This is the question I get asked most: is it even worth adopting these tools, or should you wait? Ask yourself these five questions:

• Professional: Cursor is probably worth it. The time savings justify the cost.
• Hobbyist/Learning: Start with Antigravity. Free is unbeatable when you're learning.

• <50k lines: Either tool works great
• 50k-200k lines: Cursor has better performance
• >200k lines: Cursor, and even then expect some slowness

• Yes: Evaluate whether cloud-based AI tools are acceptable per your company's policies
• No: Use whichever tool you prefer

• Frequently: Cursor's Composer mode is worth the price
• Rarely: Antigravity's free tier handles single-file edits just fine

• Yes, I can adapt: Antigravity is amazing value while it lasts
• No, I need stability: Cursor's business model is clearer
  

For professional developers: Get both. Use Cursor for your main work, keep Antigravity around for experimentation and second opinions. Total cost: $20/month, and you're covered for any scenario.

For students/hobbyists: Start with Antigravity. It's free, it's powerful, and it'll teach you what AI coding tools can do. Upgrade to Cursor only if you find yourself needing the advanced features.

For teams: This is tricky because neither tool has strong team features yet. Cursor is probably the safer bet due to its clearer business model, but honestly, team-based AI coding tools are still an unsolved problem.

What About Just Sticking with GitHub Copilot?

If you're already using GitHub Copilot ($10/month), should you switch?

My take: Copilot is getting left behind. It's still good for autocomplete, but it lacks:

• Multi-file operation capabilities
• Advanced codebase understanding
• Inline editing with proper diff previews
• Composer-style high-level planning

Copilot was revolutionary in 2021. In 2024, it feels like the minimum viable AI coding tool. Both Cursor and Antigravity are a generation ahead.

If you're paying $10/month for Copilot, spending $20/month on Cursor is a meaningful upgrade. Or switching to Antigravity for free is a meaningful upgrade.

FAQ

The Personal Reality Check

Here's what nobody tells you about AI coding tools until you've used them for months:

Weeks 1-3 with any new AI tool: "This is revolutionary! This changes everything! How did I code before this?"

Month 2: "Okay, it's really useful for specific things, but I'm still writing most of my code."

Month 3-6: "It's a tool in my toolkit. Sometimes essential, sometimes ignored."

The hype cycle is real. Don't make long-term commitments (like $240/year) until you've used a tool through the entire cycle.

Antigravity being browser-based sounds like a minor detail. In practice, it adds friction every time you use it:

• Open browser (if not already open)
• Navigate to correct tab (I always have 30+ tabs)
• Wait for page to load
• Upload or sync your project
• Start working

Versus Cursor:

• Open app
• Start working

These 15-30 seconds of friction add up. On days when I'm context-switching a lot, I just... don't use Antigravity because the activation energy is too high.

This is why I still pay for Cursor despite Antigravity being free and often comparable. The lower friction means I actually use it.

You'll Use These Tools Less Than You Expect

I thought I'd be using AI for every single line of code. Reality: I use AI assistance for maybe 30-40% of my coding time.

Why not more?

• Simple code doesn't need AI (writing a straightforward function is faster to just write)
• Complex logic requires too much context for AI to help effectively
• Some work is more about thinking than typing (no AI can help with "what should this feature actually do?")

The sweet spot: medium-complexity tasks that are tedious but well-defined. That's where AI shines.

Marketing says: "AI will write your code for you!"

Reality: The value is in:

• Eliminating context switching (don't need to Google how to do X)
• Reducing typos and syntax errors (AI-generated code is usually syntactically correct)
• Providing a rubber duck (explaining problems to AI helps clarify thinking)
• Accelerating refactoring (boring but necessary work)

If you buy these tools expecting AI to replace coding, you'll be disappointed. If you buy them to eliminate friction and tedium, you'll be delighted.

My Cursor usage over 6 months:

Month 1: Tried to use AI for everything. Frustrating and often slower.

Month 2: Used AI primarily for autocomplete and chat. Better, but felt like I wasn't getting full value.

Month 3: Discovered Cmd+K inline editing. Game-changer. Started using this constantly.

Month 4: Learned to prompt Composer mode effectively. Started using it for refactoring.

Month 5: Found my rhythm—AI for refactoring and boilerplate, manual coding for complex logic.

Month 6: Comfortable enough that I don't think about it. It's just part of my workflow.

Don't expect to unlock full value immediately. These tools have depth that takes time to discover.

The Honest Answer on Value

Is Cursor worth $240/year?

For me personally: yes. It saves me 3-4 hours per month, which at my hourly rate is worth $300-400. The ROI is clearly positive.

For a student or hobbyist: probably not. Antigravity gives you 80% of the value for free.

For a professional developer at a tech company: absolutely. You're probably billing $100-300/hour. If Cursor saves you even 2 hours per year, it's paid for itself.

My plan for the next 6 months:

1. Keep my Cursor subscription - It's my daily driver, and the value is clear
2. Continue using Antigravity - For experimentation, learning, and second opinions
3. Stay alert for local AI models - If quality matches cloud models, I'll switch for privacy reasons
4. Watch for team-based tools - The current single-player limitation is the biggest gap

The AI coding tool space is moving incredibly fast. New tools launch every month. Features improve every week. Capabilities that seemed impossible last year are mundane today.

My advice: engage with these tools now, but hold them loosely. Don't build your entire career around a specific tool. Learn the principles—how to prompt AI effectively, how to evaluate suggestions critically, how to use AI as a thought partner—and you'll be ready for whatever comes next.

The specific tools will change. Cursor and Antigravity won't be the leaders forever. But the skill of working effectively with AI assistants? That's the durable skill to build.

Wrap up

We're living through a weird transitional period where:

• AI is good enough to be genuinely useful
• But not good enough to be truly transformative
• Free and paid tools coexist uncomfortably
• The business models are still being figured out
• The best practices are still being discovered

In this environment, the winners are the developers who:

• Experiment with multiple tools
• Stay skeptical of marketing claims
• Focus on solving problems rather than using the latest tech
• Build skills that transcend any specific tool

That's my approach, and after $240 and six months of testing, it's served me well.

Both Cursor and Antigravity are impressive tools. Neither is perfect. Both will be obsolete in 2-3 years as AI continues advancing. But right now, today, they're the best options available for AI-assisted coding.

Use them. Learn from them. But don't worship them.

And whatever you do, don't spend $240 on multiple overlapping subscriptions like I did. Learn from my expensive mistakes.

Related Articles

Best AI Coding Tools in 2025: Cursor vs GitHub Copilot vs Codeium

Compare the best AI coding tools of 2025—Cursor, GitHub Copilot, and Codeium. Discover which assistant excels in code completion, multi-file refactoring, chat support, and cost-effectiveness to boost your developer productivity.

Humai.blog - Al Insights, Tools & Productivity WorkflowsDani

Google Antigravity: AI-First IDE with Gemini 3 Pro [2025]

Google Antigravity transforms software development with autonomous AI agents. Free IDE powered by Gemini 3 Pro for agent-first coding workflows.

Humai.blog - Al Insights, Tools & Productivity WorkflowsMark

How to Build Agents with Gemini 3: A Technical Deep Dive

Gemini 3 isn’t just an upgrade; it’s a shift to agentic AI. We dissect the pricing, ‘Deep Think’ architecture, and APIs to help you decide if it’s ready for your production stack.

Humai.blog - Al Insights, Tools & Productivity WorkflowsMark