cursor vs Antigravity who is winning

Introduction: The 2026 IDE Showdown

The software development landscape underwent a seismic shift in November 2025 with the public preview release of Google Antigravity. For several years, Cursor effectively monopolized the "AI-native" space, redefining the developer experience by tightly integrating large language models into the fabric of VS Code. Cursor established itself as the premier tool for surgical precision, focusing on high-speed inline completions and "human-in-the-loop" acceleration. It perfected the model of AI-assisted coding, where the developer remains the active pilot, utilizing tools like Composer to execute manual intentions with unprecedented speed.

However, Google Antigravity challenges this established workflow by introducing an "agent-first" philosophy. Rather than merely augmenting the developer's keystrokes, Antigravity focuses on autonomous agent orchestration. It asks developers to transition from writing code to managing a workforce of asynchronous AI agents. Through features like "Mission Control," Antigravity allows users to delegate broad objectives—such as scaffolding entire features or refactoring backend architecture—while the IDE handles the planning, implementation, and testing in parallel.

This comparison highlights a fundamental divergence in the 2025 market: the choice between a tool designed for granular, hands-on control (Cursor) and a platform built for high-level task delegation (Antigravity). While Cursor remains the champion of performance for massive legacy codebases, Antigravity’s ability to index projects in mere minutes and deploy multiple agents simultaneously suggests a future where the IDE acts less like a smart typewriter and more like an engineering manager. The competition is no longer just about who has the better autocomplete; it is about whether developers should write code or supervise those who do.

Core Philosophies: Agent-First vs. AI-Augmented

The distinction between Cursor and Google Antigravity represents a fundamental divergence in IDE philosophy: the choice between wearing a robotic exoskeleton and commanding a digital workforce.

Cursor is built on an AI-augmented philosophy, designed to keep the developer firmly in the driver’s seat while drastically increasing velocity. Its workflow revolves around high-speed "Tab" completions that predict intent in real-time, coupled with the "Composer" feature for surgical, human-in-the-loop edits. Cursor optimizes for the "flow state," ensuring that the AI acts as an extension of the developer’s thought process rather than a separate entity. It remains the preferred environment for engineers who value granular control, low latency, and the tactile satisfaction of writing code with superhuman assistance.

In contrast, Antigravity pioneers an agent-first architecture that fundamentally alters the user interface. It asks developers to step back from the text buffer and assume a supervisory role via its "Manager View" (Mission Control). Instead of merely assisting with the current file, the user spawns and tracks parallel agents that autonomously plan, execute, and verify tasks asynchronously. This approach has popularized the concept of "vibe coding"—constructing full-stack applications through high-level directives rather than syntax management.

This proficiency is underscored by Antigravity’s impressive 1487 Elo rating on WebDev Arena, proving its capability to handle broad architectural challenges without constant hand-holding. While Cursor focuses on the immediate "now" of coding, Antigravity focuses on the "what," transforming the developer from a writer into an architect who orchestrates multiple autonomous threads simultaneously.

Performance Benchmarks and Speed

When evaluating the raw performance of these two IDEs, the comparative data reveals a distinct trade-off between aggressive autonomous speed and sustained stability at scale. Google Antigravity demonstrates a clear advantage in initial project setup and agentic throughput, designed to reduce the friction of "cold starts." In benchmark tests regarding repository indexing, Antigravity ingested a 200,000-line project in just 3 to 5 minutes. In contrast, Cursor typically requires 10 to 15 minutes to reach full context awareness for a project of the same size, making Antigravity the substantially quicker option for developers frequently switching between mid-sized repositories.

This speed advantage extends to specific task execution. For standard full-stack implementations, such as scaffolding a Next.js and Supabase feature, Antigravity completed the task in approximately 42 seconds, notably outpacing Cursor’s average of 68 seconds. This efficiency is underpinned by Antigravity’s impressive 76.2% score on SWE-bench Verified, indicating a high proficiency in resolving complex, real-world software engineering problems autonomously rather than just offering inline suggestions.

However, raw speed does not always equate to consistency across all environments. Cursor maintains a reputation for superior stability, particularly within massive enterprise environments. While Antigravity excels at rapid indexing, its performance is reported to degrade or become resource-heavy on codebases exceeding 300,000 lines. Cursor, conversely, remains highly performant and responsive in these massive legacy environments, handling the load with more predictable resource consumption. Consequently, while Antigravity leads in "sprinting" through new features and indexing via parallel agents, Cursor remains the dependable marathon runner, offering a more polished experience for surgically editing distinctively large-scale architectures without system strain.

Key Features: Artifacts vs. Surgical Edits

The divergent philosophies of these two platforms are most evident in how they handle task execution and environment integration. In Google Antigravity, the user experience centers on the delegation of complex workflows. Because the IDE is "agent-first," prioritizing autonomous operation, it relies heavily on "Artifacts" to maintain developer trust. These Artifacts serve as a verifiable paper trail, encompassing detailed task lists, implementation plans, and execution summaries. This feature allows developers to review the AI's logic asynchronously, moving away from the need for constant supervision.

Crucially, Antigravity enhances this with its "browser-in-the-loop" capability. The agents do not merely scrape code; they can interact with a live browser instance to visually verify UI changes. This results in actionable Artifacts like screen recordings and screenshots, effectively proving that a feature works before the developer even reviews the code.

Conversely, Cursor prioritizes a "surgical," hands-on developer experience rooted in the stability of the traditional VS Code environment. Its significant advantage lies in its unrestricted access to the official Visual Studio Marketplace. Cursor users can seamlessly migrate their existing workflows, retaining access to the tens of thousands of plugins that define modern development.

Antigravity, largely due to its architectural fork status, is currently limited to the Open VSX extension registry. With a catalogue of only approximately 3,000 extensions, Antigravity users may find themselves unable to install niche but critical tools. Ultimately, the choice lies between Cursor’s polished, extension-rich ecosystem and Antigravity’s transparent, autonomous verification tools which sacrifice some ecosystem depth for agentic capability.

Model Support and Backend Flexibility

The core differentiator between these two platforms lies not just in their interface, but in the intelligence engines driving their respective environments. Google Antigravity leverages its massive infrastructure to offer an expansive, agnostic multi-model backend. Rather than locking developers into a single ecosystem, Antigravity supports a diverse array of frontier models, including Google’s Gemini 3 series and Anthropic’s Claude 4.5 (Sonnet and Opus). Uniquely, it also embraces the open-source community by integrating powerful variants like GPT-OSS-120B. This flexibility is essential for its agent-first architecture, allowing users to route specific tasks—such as creative UI scaffolding or rigorous backend logic—to the model best suited for that specific domain.

Conversely, Cursor prioritizes tight optimization over broad variety. Its philosophy relies heavily on proprietary Composer models and a highly optimized integration of Claude. Rather than exposing a raw list of models for every task, Cursor tunes its backend for low-latency inline completions and surgical edits. This focus ensures that the "Tab" auto-complete experience remains fluid, making the AI feel like a natural extension of the developer’s thought process rather than an external consultant.

However, when managing deep structural changes, the raw power and variety of the backend become decisive. In benchmarks analyzing complex code environments, Antigravity’s ability to orchestrate heavy-duty models results in a superior refactoring accuracy of 94%. Cursor, while exceptional at speed and flow, trails in these intricate scenarios with a 78% accuracy rate. This disparity suggests that while Cursor excels at "speed of thought" coding, Antigravity’s flexible backend provides distinct advantages for handling significant architectural debt and large-scale modernization.

Pricing and Value Proposition

The economic divergence between Cursor and Google Antigravity is as distinct as their technical architectures. While Cursor operates on a mature, tiered subscription model typical of SaaS platforms, Antigravity is currently leveraging Google’s infrastructure scale to disrupt the market with an aggressive public preview strategy.

Cursor structures its pricing around a predictable monthly commitment. The entry-level Pro tier is priced at the industry standard of $20 per month, offering a baseline for fast, premium model requests. However, for power users who rely heavily on "Composer" or large-context queries, the costs can scale significantly. High-volume developers may opt for the Pro+ ($60/month) or the extensive Ultra tier ($200/month) to secure maximum throughput. These subscriptions generally operate on a usage-based credit system; complex model requests deduct from a monthly balance, meaning heavy usage early in the billing cycle can lead to throttled speeds later on unless additional credits are purchased.

In contrast, Google Antigravity removes the initial financial barrier entirely during its public preview phase. Currently free for individual developers, it employs a unique approach to usage limits that favors high-intensity experimentation. Rather than a monthly credit pool that can be depleted, Antigravity utilizes a "generous" rate limit that refreshes every five hours. This structure encourages developers to utilize heavy agentic workflows—spawning multiple asynchronous agents simultaneously—without the anxiety of "using up" a monthly allowance in a single weekend.

While Antigravity plans to eventually integrate into Google Cloud billing for enterprise users—likely shifting toward a utility-based model—the current value proposition is stark. Cursor offers the stability and guaranteed performance of a paid product, whereas Antigravity offers a high-powered, zero-cost entry point for those willing to navigate a newer environment.

Final Verdict: Who is Winning?

Declaring a definitive winner between Cursor and Google Antigravity depends less on raw benchmarks and more on the developer’s preferred operating model: the hands-on craftsman versus the architectural orchestrator.

Cursor is the clear winner for stability and precision. It remains the superior choice for professional developers who demand "hands-on" control over their codebase. Its maturity shines in complex, production-grade environments where surgical edits are required rather than broad strokes. For those who view AI as a high-speed extension of their own thought process—augmenting manual coding without surrendering the steering wheel—Cursor provides a polished, reliable experience with significantly lower system resource usage. It fits seamlessly into existing workflows without the friction of unproven features.

Antigravity wins on speed and delegation. It is the undisputed champion for "greenfield" scaffolding and rapid prototyping. If the objective is to materialize a full-stack application from high-level prompts or delegate parallel tasks—such as writing frontend code while simultaneously generating backend tests—Google’s agent-first approach offers a glimpse into the future of coding. It is best suited for developers willing to act as "Mission Control," managing autonomous agents to clear backlogs or build proofs-of-concept at velocity.

However, early adopters of Antigravity must navigate significant trade-offs. The platform struggles with "Phantom Fix" bugs, where agents—particularly those driven by Gemini 3 Pro—claim to resolve issues without actually altering the file diffs. Additionally, its "heavy" performance profile can tax hardware that Cursor runs on effortlessly.

Verdict: Choose Cursor for the daily reliability of a production engineer; choose Antigravity for the creative velocity of a startup founder.

google antigravity

Related Topics

cursor vs Antigravity who is winning