# Cursor vs Google Antigravity

> Cursor vs Google Antigravity: Google Antigravity is our pick, leading for beginners and free plans. They split on rate-limit window and price beyond the plan.

![Cursor logo](https://www.versusref.com/logos/cursor.png) ![Google Antigravity logo](https://www.versusref.com/logos/google-antigravity.png)

Both AI coding agents platforms, Cursor (AI IDE with CLI and cloud agents; ships its own Grok/Composer models. Acquired by SpaceX (completed 2026-08-14, per cursor.com/blog/joining-spacex); also segments terminal_agent, cloud_agent.) and Google Antigravity (Agent-first IDE + CLI + desktop agent manager; Google's consumer coding product since Gemini CLI's 2026-06-18 consumer cutover) go head to head here, priced from $20/mo and $19.99/mo respectively. Start with the bottom line, then the verified fact table and real production costs.

AI coding agents platforms · 35 facts compared · all sourced · pricing verified Oct 2, 2026

## Bottom line

Google Antigravity wins six of seven use cases: Beginners, Free Plans, Local Models, Open Source, Terminal Workflows and VS Code. Its cheapest paid plan is $19.99/mo, while Cursor's is $20/mo, and its free plan includes agent model access to Gemini 3.8 Flash. It runs local models, which Cursor does not publish, and it works inside Visual Studio Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains, Zed and Xcode rather than only its own editor. Cursor keeps the Enterprise use case, where it offers a self-hosted or VPC deployment that Google Antigravity lacks, along with a zero data retention option and SOC 2. Outside that enterprise niche, Google Antigravity fits more buyers.

## Verdict summary

| Use case | Winner | Why |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Beginners | Google Antigravity | For newer developers, price and the free plan matter most, and these two are close. |
| Enterprise | Cursor | For engineering orgs, code handling and deployment control decide this. |
| Free Plans | Google Antigravity | What the free plan actually allows matters most here. |
| Local Models | Google Antigravity | Running models on your own machine is the deciding factor, and only Google Antigravity publishes local model support. |
| Open Source | Google Antigravity | Neither tool publishes a license, a list of supported model providers, GitHub stars or a separate hosted option, so the main open source signals are missing on both sides. |
| Terminal Workflows | Google Antigravity | For shell-first developers, where the agent runs matters most. |
| VS Code | Google Antigravity | Editor support is the deciding factor. |

## Cursor vs Google Antigravity: head-to-head facts

| Fact | Cursor | Google Antigravity | Verified |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| How usage is metered | $ usage pool + per-token ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/account/pricing)) | Time windows + $ usage pool ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/plans)) | Oct 2 |
| What the free plan allows | Hobby: 'Limited Agent requests', 'Access to Composer' ([source](https://cursor.com/help/account-and-billing/pricing)) | $0 Individual plan: agent model access to Gemini 3.8 Flash ([source](https://antigravity.google/pricing)) | Oct 2 |
| Cheapest paid plan (monthly) | $20 ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/account/pricing)) | $19.99 ([source](https://gemini.google/subscriptions/)) | Oct 2 |
| Top individual plan | $200 ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/account/pricing)) | $199.99 ([source](https://gemini.google/subscriptions/)) | Oct 2 |
| Rate-limit window | monthly (pools reset with the billing cycle) ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/account/pricing)) | Pro: "refreshed every five hours until the weekly limit... ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/plans)) | Oct 2 |
| Bring your own API key | true ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/settings/api-keys)) | Partial: Antigravity CLI can run on your own Gemini API... ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/cli/install)) | Oct 2 |
| Models available | Grok 4.7, Grok 4.6, Grok 4.5 +11 more ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/account/pricing)) | Gemini 3.8 Flash, Gemini 3.7 Flash, Gemini 3.6 Flash +5 more ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/models)) | Oct 2 |
| Pick the model per task | ✓  Yes ([source](https://cursor.com/help/account-and-billing/pricing)) | ✓  Yes ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/models)) | Oct 2 |
| Runs local models | n/a | ✓  Yes ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/sdk/local-models)) | Oct 2 |
| Where it runs | Desktop IDE (VS Code fork), Agents window +10 more ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/cloud-agent)) | desktop app (Antigravity 2.0 agent manager), IDE +8 more ([source](https://antigravity.google/product)) | Oct 2 |
| Autonomous multi-file edits | ✓  Yes ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/agent/chat/checkpoints)) | ✓  Yes ([source](https://antigravity.google/product)) | Oct 2 |
| Runs terminal commands | ✓  Yes ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/agent/security)) | ✓  Yes ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/permissions)) | Oct 2 |
| Background / cloud agents | ✓  Yes ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/cloud-agent)) | ✓  Yes ([source](https://antigravity.google/product)) | Oct 2 |
| Opens PRs from issues | ✓  Yes ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/cloud-agent)) | n/a | Oct 2 |
| MCP support | ✓  Yes ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/agent/security)) | ✓  Yes ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/mcp)) | Oct 2 |
| Trains on your code? | Privacy Mode on: not used for training by Cursor or... ([source](https://cursor.com/data-use)) | Individual: governed by Google Terms of Service ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/faq)) | Oct 2 |
| Zero data retention option | ✓  Yes ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/enterprise/privacy-and-data-governance)) | n/a | Oct 2 |
| Self-hosted / VPC deployment | ✓  Yes ([source](https://cursor.com/docs/cloud-agent/self-hosted/choose-runtime)) | ✗  No ([source](https://antigravity.google/docs/enterprise)) | Oct 2 |

## Cursor vs Google Antigravity pricing: true cost at 3 usage tiers

Real monthly cost at 3 developer profiles: hobbyist (~5 h/week), full-time developer (~25 h/week of daily agent use), team of 5. Most vendors do not publish how much usage a plan covers, so the full-time row spans the cheapest to the top individual plan unless the vendor publishes its own guidance for daily users. Bring-your-own-key and open-source agents show the model bill you pay the provider, never $0.

| Volume | Buyer | Cursor | Google Antigravity | Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ~5 h/week of agent use | Hobbyist | $20/mo | $19.99/mo | Side projects and evenings. Priced at each vendor's cheapest paid plan (annual billing where offered), the tier every vendor sells for light use. |
| ~25 h/week, daily multi-file agent tasks | Full-time developer | $60-$100/mo | $19.99-$199.99/mo | Daily agent use. Most vendors do not publish how much usage a plan covers, so this shows the span from the cheapest to the top individual plan; where a vendor publishes its own guidance for daily agent users, that figure is used instead. |
| 5 seats | Team of 5 | $200/mo | $150/mo | Priced from each vendor's own team plan: per-seat prices x 5, flat team plans as published. A tool with no published team price shows that rather than a guess. |

## Cursor vs Google Antigravity: verdicts by use case

### Beginners → Google Antigravity

For newer developers, price and the free plan matter most, and these two are close. Google Antigravity's cheapest paid plan is $19.99/mo, while Cursor's is $20/mo. Neither publishes how much usage the entry tier includes. Both offer checkpoints and rollback, so undoing a bad agent run is covered either way. Google Antigravity's free plan gives agent model access to Gemini 3.8 Flash, while Cursor's Hobby plan lists limited Agent requests and access to Composer. A slightly lower price and clearer model access on its free plan give Google Antigravity a small edge.

### Enterprise → Cursor

For engineering orgs, code handling and deployment control decide this. Cursor states that with Privacy Mode on, code is not used for training, while Google Antigravity's individual tier is governed by the Google Terms of Service. Cursor offers a self-hosted or VPC deployment; Google Antigravity does not. Cursor also publishes a zero data retention option and SOC 2, neither of which Google Antigravity publishes. Both offer SSO and admin audit logs, Cursor through SAML/OIDC on Teams and Google Antigravity through Google Cloud enterprise offerings.

### Free Plans → Google Antigravity

What the free plan actually allows matters most here. Google Antigravity's free plan includes agent model access to Gemini 3.8 Flash, while Cursor's Hobby plan offers limited Agent requests and access to Composer. Cursor supports bringing your own API key outright, whereas Google Antigravity's support is partial, tied to running its CLI on your own Gemini API key. Paid plans start close together: Google Antigravity at $19.99/mo and Cursor at $20/mo. Google Antigravity also runs local models, which Cursor does not publish. Clearer model access on its free plan and local model support outweigh Cursor's fuller key support.

### Local Models → Google Antigravity

Running models on your own machine is the deciding factor, and only Google Antigravity publishes local model support. Neither tool publishes a list of supported model providers or a license, so those do not separate them. Cursor does support bringing your own API key, while Google Antigravity's support is partial, but a key for a hosted provider matters less here than running locally.

### Open Source → Google Antigravity

Neither tool publishes a license, a list of supported model providers, GitHub stars or a separate hosted option, so the main open source signals are missing on both sides. The one published difference is local models: Google Antigravity runs them, and Cursor does not publish that capability. That gives Google Antigravity a slight edge for teams that want to keep the model side under their own control, though neither shows the agent itself as open source.

### Terminal Workflows → Google Antigravity

For shell-first developers, where the agent runs matters most. Cursor lists a desktop IDE built on a VS Code fork and an Agents window among its surfaces, while Google Antigravity lists a desktop agent manager and an IDE among its surfaces. Google Antigravity also references an Antigravity CLI that can run on your own Gemini API key, pointing to a command-line path Cursor does not name. Both run terminal commands, offer background or cloud agents, read AGENTS.md project rules and support MCP. The named CLI gives Google Antigravity a small edge.

### VS Code → Google Antigravity

Editor support is the deciding factor. Google Antigravity lists Visual Studio Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains, Zed and Xcode, so it works inside VS Code itself. Cursor lists its own editor, a desktop IDE built on a VS Code fork, which suits developers happy to switch to the fork. Both make autonomous multi-file edits and offer checkpoints and rollback. Both list codebase indexing, verified for Cursor and vendor-claimed for Google Antigravity. Working inside VS Code proper tips the balance to Google Antigravity.

## Cursor vs Google Antigravity: common questions

### Is Cursor cheaper than Google Antigravity?

Barely, and only in the other direction. Cursor's cheapest paid plan is $20/mo, while Google Antigravity's is $19.99/mo. Cursor's top individual plan is $200/mo, versus $199.99/mo for Google Antigravity. The bigger gap is on team plans: Cursor lists $40/user/mo, and Google Antigravity lists $30/user/mo.

### Cursor vs Google Antigravity: which is better for beginners?

Both suit beginners and are close on price. Google Antigravity's cheapest paid plan is $19.99/mo, while Cursor's is $20/mo. Both offer checkpoints and rollback for undoing agent mistakes. Google Antigravity's free plan includes agent model access to Gemini 3.8 Flash, while Cursor's Hobby plan offers limited Agent requests and access to Composer.

### Is Cursor or Google Antigravity better for enterprise security?

Cursor publishes more here. It offers a self-hosted or VPC deployment, a zero data retention option, SOC 2, and a Privacy Mode under which code is not used for training. Google Antigravity does not offer self-hosted deployment, and its individual tier is governed by the Google Terms of Service. Both offer admin audit logs.

### Cursor vs Google Antigravity team plan pricing: which costs less per seat?

Google Antigravity lists its team plan at $30/user/mo, and Cursor lists its team plan at $40/user/mo. Both also offer an Enterprise plan through contact sales.

### Is Google Antigravity a good alternative to Cursor for local models?

Yes, if local models matter to you. Google Antigravity publishes local model support, and Cursor does not. Cursor does support bringing your own API key, while Google Antigravity supports it only partially, through its CLI running on your own Gemini API key.

### How do usage limits work in Cursor and Google Antigravity?

Cursor meters usage with a dollar usage pool plus per-token charges, and its pools reset monthly with the billing cycle. Google Antigravity meters with time windows plus a dollar usage pool; on Pro, usage refreshes every five hours up to a weekly limit.

### What happens when I go past my plan in Cursor?

Once your plan pool runs out, Cursor bills on-demand usage at the same per-token API rates. Its top individual plan is $200/mo.

### Which models does Google Antigravity offer?

Google Antigravity lists Gemini 3.8 Flash, Gemini 3.7 Flash and Gemini 3.6 Flash among several models, and lets you pick the model per task. Its free plan includes agent model access to Gemini 3.8 Flash.

### Does Cursor review pull requests?

Yes. Cursor offers Bugbot PR review, and it can also open PRs from issues.

Source: https://www.versusref.com/coding-agents/cursor-vs-google-antigravity/