If you know Cursor as an AI code editor and have heard about Google’s new Antigravity agent-first environment, you already understand they both aim to enhance developer productivity. What you might not know is that Antigravity’s underlying model has scored over 1487 on WebDev Arena benchmarks while Cursor’s proprietary models complete typical tasks in around 30 seconds, hinting at real performance tradeoffs that matter to users. So, you know what to expect from this article? Let’s dig in and find out the winner of the Antigravity vs Cursor debate.

What Antigravity and Cursor Are

Before we compare, let’s quickly run over what each platform does.

Antigravity is an ambitious AI IDE from Google built around agentic workflows. It treats AI models like autonomous junior developers that can plan, execute, test, and verify multi-step tasks across your project by managing your editor, terminal, and browser.

Cursor, in contrast, is an AI-augmented development environment that embeds smart coding assistance directly into your editor. It offers autocomplete, intelligent refactoring, and repository-aware insights, but keeps the developer in control of each change.

The difference is that Antigravity gives you agents that can operate independently, while Cursor enhances hands-on human development.

Antigravity vs Cursor – Workflow Differences

Antigravity

Antigravity is an “agent-first” IDE. Instead of making suggestions, it spins up autonomous AI agents that can:

• Generate and refactor large code segments.
• Run shell and browser commands.
• Navigate huge contexts of code and documentation.
• Generate artifacts, plans, and screenshots for audit and traceability.

You communicate with a Mission Control or Agent Manager instead of just typing code edits.

Cursor

Cursor doesn’t try to automate everything. Instead, it focuses on augmenting your manual workflow by:

• Offering fast inline completions and suggestions
• Refactoring with deeper context awareness
• Supporting multi-file changes without breaking builds
• Restricting actions to the developer’s command for safety

This makes Cursor feel more like a powerful assistant and less like an “autonomous collaborator.”

Antigravity vs Cursor – Feature Comparisons

Below are breakdowns of key aspects that matter in practical use.

Core Technology

Antigravity:

• Multi-agent orchestration with built-in control panels

• Uses Gemini 3.0 Pro (try here), Flash, Sonnet, Opus, GPT-OSS options

• Very-large context windows for entire repo + docs

• Autonomous terminal and browser actions

Cursor:

• Proprietary Composer model with OpenAI, Claude, and others

• Inline and multi-file contextual suggestions

• Sandbox-style controlled environment

• Less disruptive actions by default

Safety and Control

Antigravity:

• Agents can execute powerful commands autonomously

• Potential for misinterpreted actions if prompts are unclear

• More freedom but more risk

Cursor:

• Each action requires explicit developer approval

• Strong guardrails and predictable behavior

• Easier to track and recover from mistakes

Integration and Environment

Antigravity:

• Built-in browser automation, terminal access

• Focus on IDE plus autonomous tools

Cursor:

• Integrates with existing editor workflows

• Known API and extension ecosystems

• Familiar VS Code-like UX

Stability and Reliability

Antigravity:

• Still in preview, early adopter bugs, and high resource demands

• Some users report performance bottlenecks on modest hardware

Cursor:

• More mature, polished tooling with fewer random failures

• Better handling of multi-turn refactors in many cases

Side-by-Side Table (about 10% of content)

Platform	Antigravity	Cursor
Core Approach	Agent-led automation	Assisted human control
Context Window	Very large	Moderate
Safety/Control	Autonomous, riskier	Controlled, safer
Browser/Terminal	Full automation	Developer-approved
Stability	Early preview, sticky bugs	Stable, mature
Best For	Experimentation, prototyping	Daily dev workflows
Cost	Free in preview	Paid tiers + free plan
Enterprise Adoption	Not yet proven	Growing adoption

Practical Performance Benchmarks

Understanding how these tools perform in real tasks helps clarify their strengths and limits.

Independent testing suggests that Antigravity can complete full-stack tasks faster — like building a complete Next.js + Supabase feature in 42 seconds compared to Cursor’s 68 seconds — but that does not account for time spent fixing errors introduced by autonomous execution.

Meanwhile, Cursor’s inline suggestions and controlled edits are often more predictable and safer for production code.

These differences matter most when you need reliable, mission-critical results versus those required for rapid prototyping or exploration.

User Reviews and Developer Feedback

This section draws directly from user discussions on Reddit, X, and community forums. Real developers often share unfiltered experiences that illustrate how these tools work in practice.

Some early users absolutely prefer Antigravity’s agentic approach, saying it feels like having a junior developer that can orchestrate complex tasks: “The agent manager is the real deal because I could run multiple threads and have simultaneous actions that finished my tasks without manual toggling.”

Another heavy user who tested several AI tools declared Antigravity the best AI IDE at the start of 2026, crediting its planning and understanding of the codebase. Post link: https://www.reddit.com/r/google_antigravity/comments/1q1tx8j/this_is_my_honest_review_of_antigravity_vs_cursor/

Related video:

A frequent theme among Cursor advocates is stability and predictability. Many devs say Cursor “feels like pair programming with someone who actually understands my codebase” and appreciate its controlled interactions.

However, some Cursor users complain about chaotic feature changes and inconsistent behavior after updates, such as the removal of models or features that break workflows.

Many note that Antigravity is powerful but rough around the edges. Users report:

• Lag and freezes, especially after multiple tasks or agents are running.
• High CPU usage and slowdowns on everyday hardware.
• Interface heaviness and occasional crashes.

Some developers feel that Claude works better inside Cursor than inside Antigravity, pointing to context loss and mistaken edits when using the same model in Google’s IDE.

Others criticize Antigravity’s lack of mature support and slow rollout of bug fixes, contrasting it with Cursor’s more active updates.

Safety Realities and Risk Stories

AI with autonomy is exciting, but it carries real risks when it has access to your system.

A widely cited incident involved Antigravity incorrectly interpreting a cache deletion task and accidentally wiping a user’s entire D drive, deleting code, documentation, and media without recovery. The tool issued an apology to the user.

That event underscores how autonomous AI can misinterpret intentions with severe consequences, especially when command access is not gated behind strict confirmations.

Cursor’s approach, where actions happen only with developer approval, inherently reduces such catastrophic risks in daily use.

When To Use Each Tool

Scenarios Where Antigravity Shines

• Rapid prototyping of complex multi-step features.

• Projects involving browser automation or full-stack workflows.

• Exploratory coding where risk tolerance is high.

• Teams that want artifact trails and planning documents.

Scenarios Where Cursor Is Better

• Daily professional development and production code.

• Controlled refactoring and multi-file edits.

• Sensitive or proprietary codebases with strict compliance needs.

• Teams that rely on stability and predictable results.

Common Misconceptions

Here are some points that often come up but deserve correction.

Antigravity is not turnkey perfect yet.

Despite its vision, early user reports highlight bugs, performance issues, and UI heavy-handedness that make it less mature than many expect.

Cursor isn’t obsolete.

Cursor continues to evolve, with updates focused on speed and reliability, and has established workflows as the de facto standard for many developers.

Free doesn’t mean best for everything.

Antigravity’s current free preview is compelling, but pricing and long-term plans are unclear. This contrasts with Cursor’s transparent subscription tiers.

The Bottom Line

The Antigravity vs Cursor debate comes down to how you want AI to help you code. Antigravity offers an agent-first environment that delegates entire tasks with minimal input and massive context understanding (which works quite well, props to Google). Cursor, meanwhile, gives you detailed, predictable assistance embedded in a familiar editor. Both have clear strengths: Antigravity for high-level automation and Cursor for precision and control. Choosing the best tool depends on your workflow preferences and project demands, with neither universally winning but each clearly suited to specific coding styles.