Promptmonitor — How often does AI recommend your brand to customers? 
Newsletters.ai — Learn about AI, the lazy way.Antigravity vs Cursor: Complete Comparison (2026)
Delegate coding tasks to autonomous agents in your IDE
AI-assisted coding with multi-file refactors and agents
Delegate coding tasks to autonomous agents in your IDE
Antigravity is best for developers experimenting with agent-first, artifact-backed workflows, especially while the Individual tier is free in public preview. Cursor is the safer pick for production teams that need mature repo-wide refactors, predictable team pricing, and enterprise controls like SOC 2, SSO, and admin analytics.
Comparison Overview
| Criteria |  Antigravity |  Cursor |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing transparency and value Measures how clear, predictable, and cost-effective pricing is for individuals and teams, including tiers, included usage, and overage mechanics. | 7Excellent entry value (free preview), but team pricing is unclear. | 8Clear tiering from free to enterprise, but heavy use can become costly. |
| Core coding workflows and productivity Assesses how well each tool supports everyday coding, multi-file changes, refactoring, navigation, and developer velocity in real projects. | 7 |
Choosing between Antigravity and Cursor usually comes down to what you want AI to do inside your editor: move faster with familiar AI-assisted coding, or delegate larger tasks to supervised agents with traceable outputs.
Antigravity positions itself as an agent-first desktop IDE. Instead of focusing primarily on inline autocomplete, it emphasizes orchestrating multiple autonomous coding agents across the editor, terminal, and browser. A core idea is “verifiable artifacts”: agents produce task plans, diffs, walkthroughs, screenshots, and even browser recordings, so reviewers can validate what happened and provide feedback via comments. Antigravity is also notable right now for pricing, the Individual tier is $0/month during public preview, which lowers the barrier to trying multi-agent workflows.
Cursor is closer to a high-performance, AI-native code editor experience built around day-to-day developer throughput. It combines tab completions, multi-file refactors via Composer (with diff previews), and agent capabilities for repo-aware tasks and code review. Cursor also stands out for broader organizational features, such as Teams and Enterprise plans, usage controls, and commonly cited enterprise readiness (for example, compliance and admin tooling).
If you are comparing Antigravity vs Cursor, you likely care about more than raw “code generation quality.” Key decision factors include how each product handles repo-wide changes, how safely you can review and audit AI output, whether your org needs SSO and governance, and what the real monthly costs look like once you scale from one developer to a team.
Detailed Analysis
Pricing transparency and value
▾
Antigravity
7Antigravity’s Individual tier is $0/month during public preview, which is strong value for trying agent-first IDE workflows. However, Team and Enterprise tiers are planned and pricing is not publicly posted, typically requiring sales contact, which reduces budgeting predictability. Usage is governed by rate limits that refresh every five hours, but exact effective throughput at sustained usage is hard to compare without published quotas.
Verdict
For most production teams in 2026, Cursor is the more reliable recommendation because it pairs strong repo-wide workflows (Composer, agents, diff-based reviews) with clearer scaling economics and enterprise capabilities (Teams and Enterprise tiers, admin controls, and reported compliance posture such as SOC 2 and GDPR). If your priority is shipping faster with minimal process disruption, Cursor is generally the safer default.
Antigravity is a compelling alternative when you specifically want agent supervision and traceability, especially for oversight-heavy workflows where artifacts, walkthroughs, and browser recordings materially improve trust and review quality. It is also attractive for individuals or small experiments due to the $0/month public preview Individual tier.
The main reason to hesitate with Antigravity today is maturity and risk, it launched recently (public preview), has limited public proof at enterprise scale, and Team/Enterprise pricing and compliance posture are not clearly published. If you need SSO, governance, and predictable support expectations, Cursor is typically the better fit; if you want to explore multi-agent orchestration with verifiable outputs, Antigravity is worth piloting.
Frequently Asked Questions
Antigravity vs Cursor, which is better for teams that need SOC 2, SSO, and governance?
▾
Cursor is the more straightforward choice for enterprise governance because it is described as SOC 2 certified and GDPR compliant, and offers RBAC plus SAML/OIDC SSO on Enterprise plans. Antigravity’s enterprise controls and certifications could not be verified publicly, and its preview status implies higher review burden for regulated environments.
Is Antigravity free, and how does that compare to Cursor pricing?
▾
Some details in this comparison could not be fully verified. Please double-check the following before making decisions:
- Exact Antigravity Team and Enterprise pricing could not be independently verified from publicly available sources
- Antigravity’s current security posture, any compliance certifications, and availability of enterprise features (SSO, RBAC, audit logging) could not be verified from publicly available sources
- The practical, enforceable context window limits for Antigravity (beyond the stated large context capability) could not be verified from publicly available sources
- Cursor’s Slack integration scope and which collaboration/admin features are available at Teams vs Enterprise could not be verified in full detail from publicly available sources
- The most current Cursor plan limits (what counts as a premium request, quotas by tier) may change over time and could not be fully verified from publicly available sources
