GILD verdict
Choose Cursor for one editor with completion, agents and models from several providers, or when audits need SOC 2 or ISO 27001.
Choose Antigravity if engineers want to keep their own editors or work from an agent manager and CLI; Gemini Enterprise seats include it. Run both on the same tickets and count accepted, reviewed changes per seat, on the plan you would buy.
Where engineers work decides it, since both agents plan, edit files, run commands, and check web UI in a browser. Cursor centers on its own editor, with cloud agents on remote machines and models from several providers on one plan. Antigravity centers on a desktop agent manager and CLI, with extensions for existing editors, and runs Gemini models with Claude on eligible Google AI plans or Gemini Enterprise.
Choosing between Google Antigravity and Cursor
Choose Google Antigravity if
- Your organization runs on Google Cloud and can put engineers on Gemini Enterprise Standard or Plus seats, which include Antigravity.
- Engineers want to keep working in VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Zed, or Xcode.
- You want plan approval and walkthrough artifacts on every task as the review standard.
Choose Cursor if
- Engineers want completion and agents inside one editor, with a choice of models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Cursor's own.
- You want agents that run in cloud machines and start from Slack, GitHub, Linear, or the web.
- Your audits require SOC 2 or ISO 27001 coverage; Cursor holds a SOC 2 Type II attestation and ISO 27001 certification, which Google does not list for Antigravity in Gemini Enterprise.
Side by side
| Dimension | Google Antigravity | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Where it runs | Antigravity 2.0 desktop app, the Antigravity CLI, the original Antigravity IDE (personal accounts only), and extensions for VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains, Zed, and Xcode | Its own desktop editor, a CLI, an agent inside JetBrains IDEs, and cloud agents started from the web, mobile, Slack, GitHub, or Linear |
| Individual priceList prices in US dollars. Included usage differs by plan and is not directly comparable. | Free with a weekly quota; Google AI Pro US$19.99 per month; Google AI Ultra from US$99.99 per month (US) | Plus US$8 (Grok models only), Premium US$30, Super US$100, or Ultra US$200 per month in the X Subscription Cursor announced Oct 12, 2026. Pro US$20 and Pro+ US$60 are legacy plans closed to new customers |
| Team price | Included in Gemini Enterprise Standard or Plus seats, from US$30 per seat per month, with US$10 or US$15 of Antigravity credit per user per month pooled weekly | Teams seats at US$30 (Premium), US$100 (Super), or US$200 (Ultra) per user per month in the X Subscription Cursor announced Oct 12, 2026; Standard US$40 and Premium US$120 seats apply only to teams created before it; Enterprise custom |
| Models | Gemini 3.8 Flash by default, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Claude Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5 on non-trial Pro, Ultra, and administrator-enabled Gemini Enterprise | Cursor's Composer and Grok models, and third-party models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and others at API rates. On the X Subscription plans Cursor announced Oct 12, 2026, third-party use bills from prepaid credit; legacy plans draw it from a second included pool |
| Data terms | Personal accounts: Google uses interactions to improve its products unless the user opts out. Gemini Enterprise: Google Cloud terms, code not used for training | Privacy Mode keeps code out of training by Cursor and model providers; on by default only for Enterprise, enforceable team-wide on Teams |
| Permissions | Deny, Ask, and Allow rules over Request Review, Default (sandboxed), Auto, and Turbo presets, with Auto limited to individual accounts on v2.23.0 or later; in Gemini Enterprise, terminal auto-execution defaults to Always proceed until changed | Terminal commands and MCP tool calls need approval by default; workspace file edits do not, except configuration files |
| Review artifacts | Implementation plans, task lists, walkthroughs, screenshots, and browser recordings, with comments on any artifact | Plan mode, agent diffs in the editor, and Bugbot pull request review |
| Enterprise compliance | Google lists no SOC 1, 2, or 3, ISO 27001, or FedRAMP support for Antigravity in Gemini Enterprise | SOC 2 Type II attestation and ISO 27001 and 42001 certifications; SSO on Teams, and SCIM, pooled usage, and invoicing on Enterprise |
What practitioners report, side by side
Each product's figures come from its own practitioners, for the group you pick.
Overall signal
All practitioners rate Cursor +6, 22 points above Google Antigravity at −16. Most of the gap is in complaints, with 49 of Google Antigravity's 102 sources negative against 41 of Cursor's 117.
The score counts the authors from all practitioners that take a side, one vote each with their latest view, and is how far positive votes lead negative ones, per 100 votes, so Google Antigravity's −16 rests on votes split 32 positive, 18 mixed and 48 negative and Cursor's +6 on 48, 27 and 41.
A lead of a fifth of the votes reads positive and a lead of half strong positive, with the same lines below zero. The dots show each source, positive, mixed, negative. Use a task pilot to measure accepted work and review time.
Footprint on the Agentic Software Development stack
They differ on two of 12 layers. On Codebase context, Google Antigravity supports it and Cursor is core. On Tool execution, Google Antigravity is core and Cursor supports it. Coverage is each product's placement on this stack, as its product page shows it. Core is a job the product owns; Supports and Touches are jobs it helps with. Coverage says nothing about how well a product does them.
| Layer | Google Antigravity | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Build | ||
| Codebase context | Supports | Core |
| Tool execution | Core | Supports |
The 10 layers where they match
| Layer | Google Antigravity | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Plan | ||
| Work planning | Supports | Supports |
| Build | ||
| Coding | Core | Core |
| Agent runtime | Core | Core |
| Validate | ||
| Debugging | Supports | Supports |
| Testing | Supports | Supports |
| Code review | Supports | Supports |
| Application security | Touches | Touches |
| Ship | ||
| Source control | Touches | Touches |
| CI/CD | Touches | Touches |
| Operate | ||
| Observability | Touches | Touches |
What practitioners praise
Among all practitioners, Cursor alone has seven praise themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Model Choice and Tab Completion lead, at 20 of 25 and 10 of 13. Google Antigravity alone has five praise themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Multi-Step Execution and Plans & Artifacts lead, at 17 of 18 and 13 of 13.
| Praised for | Google Antigravity | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-Step Execution | 17 of 18 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Plans & Artifacts | 13 of 13 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Model Access | 11 of 11 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Developer Experience | 6 of 15 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Browser Verification | 2 of 5 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Model Choice | Not a theme in its sources | 20 of 25 |
| Tab Completion | Not a theme in its sources | 10 of 13 |
| Agent Execution | Not a theme in its sources | 9 of 12 |
| Codebase Understanding | Not a theme in its sources | 9 of 15 |
| Cloud Agents | Not a theme in its sources | 8 of 9 |
| Speed | Not a theme in its sources | 8 of 10 |
| Value for Money | 2 of 4 so far | 7 of 13 |
Each count is the sources that praise a theme, or raise it as a concern, out of those that discuss it. A row pairs the two products when both carry a theme under the same or an equivalent name.
A count ending in "so far" has under 5 sources from 3 authors among all practitioners. "Not a theme in its sources" means GILD found no theme of that name in that product's sources.
What practitioners raise as concerns
Among all practitioners, Google Antigravity alone has five concern themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Quotas & Plan Changes and Reliability lead, at 28 of 37 and 24 of 25. Of the two themes both carry, Needs Close Steering differs most. It is raised in 4 of the 6 Google Antigravity sources that discuss it, against 10 of 12 for Cursor. Cursor alone has four concern themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Usage / Cost and Inconsistent Quality lead, at 25 of 35 and 14 of 15.
| Raised as a concern | Google Antigravity | Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Requires Strong Review | 6 of 8 | 14 of 19 |
| Needs Close Steering | 4 of 6 | 10 of 12 |
| Quotas & Plan Changes | 28 of 37 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Reliability | 24 of 25 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Product Direction | 16 of 16 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Permissions & Safety | 12 of 13 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Data Privacy | 5 of 6 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Usage / Cost | Not a theme in its sources | 25 of 35 |
| Inconsistent Quality | Not a theme in its sources | 14 of 15 |
| Reliability & Performance | Not a theme in its sources | 12 of 12 |
| Editor Lock-in | Not a theme in its sources | 7 of 11 |
19 sources
- Antigravity docs: Plans
- Antigravity docs: Models
- Google Antigravity pricing
- Google Antigravity Additional Terms of Service
- Antigravity docs: Agent permissions
- Antigravity docs: IDE extensions
- Antigravity docs: Artifact review
- Gemini Enterprise docs: AI developer tools overview
- Gemini Enterprise docs: Configure AI developer tools settings
- Gemini Enterprise docs: Quotas and pay-as-you-go usage
- Google One: Google AI plans
- Cursor pricing
- Cursor forum: Introducing The X Subscription, staff announcement (Oct 12, 2026)
- Cursor docs: Models & pricing
- Cursor docs: Teams pricing
- Cursor docs: Agent security
- Cursor docs: Cloud agents
- Cursor docs: Privacy & data governance
- Cursor security