I expected VS Code, Cursor, and Google Antigravity to feel similar after a month of daily use. They all promise faster coding, smarter assistance, and fewer repetitive tasks, so I assumed the differences would mostly come down to preference.
That changed quickly. Once I started using them for real projects instead of short demos, their strengths and weaknesses became much easier to spot. After a month, choosing a favorite was easy.
Related
I gave Claude Code and Google Antigravity a full project, and they finished twice as fast as VS Code alone
VS Code needs to catch up.
VS Code
Still home, now with agents
VS Code was the easiest of the three for me to settle into because it still feels like home. I already know where everything lives, my extensions are ready to go, the integrated terminal is familiar, and tools like Git, debugging, IntelliSense, and refactoring are exactly where I expect them to be.
Microsoft has started offering the Agents Window, which puts AI tasks at the center instead of squeezing everything into a sidebar. The Agents window can manage sessions across multiple projects, let me run several agent tasks in parallel, and show the files and changes each session is making.
I can start with a high-level request there, leave an agent working, and jump back into the regular editor when I want more control without losing the session context.
For example, while working on my portfolio site, I could ask an agent to clean up the responsive layout, while in another session, I looked at a separate UI issue. I could then open the changed files, inspect the diffs, and make the final tweaks myself. That mix of automation and manual control suits VS Code quite well.
But familiarity is also part of its weakness. VS Code sometimes feels like a traditional editor that has gradually received AI features rather than something designed around AI from day one. There are now agents, Chat, extensions, models, sessions, and different execution options to understand, which can make the UI cluttered.
The new Agents window improves that, but VS Code still makes me feel I am using the editor while AI sites are beside me.
Google Antigravity
Smart automation with one big catch
Google Antigravity initially struck me as yet another VS Code-style editor with AI layered on top, but Antigravity 2.0 takes a much more interesting approach. Google has split the experience into two. Antigravity 2.0 is now an agent-centric command center, while the traditional IDE remains available when I actually want to get into the code and work with files directly.
And I actually like a lot about this direction. Instead of staring at an editor while an agent works, I can hand Antigravity a task and focus on what I want to accomplish.
Antigravity also supports message queues. I can queue up more instructions instead of waiting for the current job to finish, which makes Antigravity something I can delegate work to.
I also became a fan of Actions and Scheduled Tasks. For example, I can schedule an agent to run a repetitive project check automatically instead of remembering to trigger it myself. Scheduled Tasks support recurring and one-off jobs, and Antigravity even gives me an integrated terminal, so I don’t need to leave the agent interface whenever I want to run the command.
My problem starts when I want to intervene manually. If Antigravity changes a few files and I want to tweak the code myself, debug something, or use a specific extension, I still need to jump over to the separate Antigravity IDE. I would have preferred a smooth transition between the two interfaces from a single place.
Related
I changed one setting in Claude Code, and my token burn dropped by 45%
Claude Code was overthinking the assignment
Cursor
It finally nails the hybrid
Cursor is where everything clicked for me. Cursor 3 has moved towards an agent-first workflow, but unlike Antigravity, it hasn’t made me choose between working with agents and working inside a traditional IDE. The new Agents Window is now the main attraction.
I can run multiple agents in parallel across different repositories and environments, keep an eye on what each one is doing, and then jump straight back into the IDE whenever I want to take control myself. I can even keep both interfaces open at the same time, which is exactly how I think an AI coding tool should work.
The Customize section brings plugins, MCP servers, rules, commands, hooks, subagents, and Skills under one roof. Skills are useful because I can teach the agent a repeatable workflow, such as how I want a project tested or deployed, instead of explaining the same process every time.
Then there are Automations, which have become one of my favorite additions. I can create agents that run on a schedule or react to events from services like GitHub and Slack. Automations now live directly inside the Agents window too, so they don’t feel like a separate feature.
I also prefer Cursor’s own Grok 4.6 experience to what I have been getting from Gemini in Antigravity and Copilot in VS Code. In my testing, it follows complicated instructions better and stays on track during longer jobs.
The biggest pro is that the IDE is still there. If an agent builds a page and I notice the spacing is off, I can open the project, edit the CSS myself, use my extensions, check the terminal, and then hand the project back to the agent.
Three AI editors, one clear winner
After a month with all three, I can see what each tool is trying to become. VS Code remains the most familiar and dependable, while Antigravity has some smart ideas around queue prompts and Actions. But Cursor feels the most complete right now.