Codex vs Cursor vs Antigravity: Best AI Coding Tool (2026)

If you searched for "Codex vs Cursor vs Antigravity" (or "Cursor vs Antigravity vs Codex"), you are likely trying to pick the right AI coding tool for your workflow. These tools overlap, but they are built with different philosophies: Codex is an agent that can work across environments, Cursor is an AI-first code editor, and Antigravity is an agent-first IDE with deep autonomy.

This guide focuses on how they work, what they are best at, and how to choose without getting lost in marketing. Features change quickly, so treat this as a workflow comparison rather than a permanent spec sheet.

What this guide includes

• A fast decision tree so you can choose in 60 seconds
• A 60-minute test plan you can run on all three tools
• A scoring sheet that turns your gut feel into a clear winner
• A screenshot checklist to document your evaluation
• Practical prompt templates you can reuse

Quick decision tree (60 seconds)

Start
|-- Want AI directly inside your editor all day? -> Cursor
|-- Want to delegate whole tasks and review results? -> Codex
`-- Want an agent-first workflow with higher autonomy? -> Antigravity

Quick verdict

• Choose Codex if you want an agent that can take tasks end-to-end, run commands, and operate in a cloud environment as well as your IDE.
• Choose Cursor if you want the best AI experience inside a familiar editor with strong autocomplete and in-place edits.
• Choose Antigravity if you want an agent-first workflow where multiple agents can plan and execute tasks with access to editor, terminal, and browser.

If you want the details, keep reading.

60-minute evaluation plan (use the same tasks for each tool)

Use a small repo you understand. Run these three tasks in each tool and score results.

Tip: do not use a brand-new codebase for the test. Familiar context makes the results more honest.

1. Tiny refactor (10-15 min)
   Rename a component and update imports.
   Success: changes are correct, scoped, and no files outside the target are touched.

2. Bug fix (20 min)
   Fix a real bug or failing test.
   Success: fix is correct, tests pass, and the explanation is clear.

3. New feature slice (20-25 min)
   Add a small feature (e.g., new button + state + basic test).
   Success: code compiles, logic is clean, and the feature matches requirements.

Scoring sheet (1-5 for each category)

Category	What to look for
Task success	Does it solve the task without hidden regressions?
Scope control	Did it avoid unrelated files and scope creep?
Code quality	Is the output idiomatic and maintainable?
Explanation	Did it explain tradeoffs and next steps clearly?
Speed	How fast did you reach a shippable result?
Confidence	Would you merge this after a normal review?

Total the scores. The highest score is your best fit right now.

Best for (fast answer)

• Codex: Delegated tasks, multi-file changes, and longer workflow automation.
• Cursor: Daily coding speed inside the editor with autocomplete and inline edits.
• Antigravity: Agent-first execution when you want deeper autonomy and orchestration.

What each tool is designed to be

Codex is a coding agent built for delegation. It is best when you want to hand off a scoped task and review the result rather than write every line yourself.

Cursor is an AI-first editor that keeps you in the flow of coding. It emphasizes inline edits, autocomplete, and chat-based help within the editor.

Antigravity is positioned as an agent-first environment where agents can plan and execute tasks with higher autonomy. Its strength is orchestration, but it requires stronger guardrails.

Hands-on test tasks (copy/paste prompts)

Run each task in all three tools so the comparison is fair.

Task 1: Rename a component (scope control)

Prompt

Rename the component `PostCard` to `ArticleCard`. Update all imports and usage.
Only touch files that reference PostCard. No other refactors.

Success criteria

• No unrelated files touched
• Build passes without manual cleanup
• Imports are sorted and linting stays clean

Task 2: Fix a real bug (debugging ability)

Prompt

Fix the bug where the hero buttons overlap on small screens.
Show the exact CSS change and explain why it works.
Only edit the relevant stylesheet.

Success criteria

• CSS change is minimal and targeted
• Explanation is clear and correct
• Mobile layout is stable at 320-375px

Task 3: Small feature slice (end-to-end)

Prompt

Add a "Last updated" label to blog posts when an updated date exists.
Keep the design consistent with existing metadata styles.

Success criteria

• Works for posts with and without updated dates
• Output matches current typography and spacing
• No layout shifts or styling regressions

Workflow comparison

Area	Codex	Cursor	Antigravity
Primary workflow	Delegated tasks and agents	Editor-first assistance	Agent-first execution
Best for	Multi-step tasks, PRs, code review	Rapid edits and autocomplete	Multi-agent task orchestration
Strength	Autonomy with repo context	Speed and ergonomics	Parallel agent execution
Caution	Needs careful review	Can be less hands-off	Requires strong guardrails

How Codex feels in practice

Codex is a good fit when you want to hand off a task and review the result. It can:

• Navigate your repo
• Edit multiple files
• Run commands and tests
• Propose changes you can review

This is ideal for refactors, large changes, or when you want to work in parallel. It is less about typing and more about delegating work with clear instructions.

How Cursor feels in practice

Cursor excels at fast, in-editor work. Its strengths include:

• Autocomplete that speeds up routine code
• Inline edits for a selected block
• Chat for explanations and multi-file changes

Cursor is ideal for developers who want to stay hands-on while getting AI help at every step. The workflow feels close to a traditional editor, but faster.

How Antigravity feels in practice

Antigravity is designed around agents that can access the editor, terminal, and browser, and execute tasks end-to-end. This makes it strong for:

• Multi-step tasks that need tools and verification
• Running tests or commands during the task
• Coordinating multiple agents on a large workflow

It is more autonomous than a typical editor assistant, so guardrails and review are critical.

Screenshot checklist (document your evaluation)

Capture these so you can compare tools side by side:

• Task list or plan screen before execution
• The diff view after Task 1 (rename)
• Terminal/test output after Task 2 (bug fix)
• The new UI after Task 3 (feature slice)
• A screenshot of any errors or failed steps
• The final summary/explanation output

Recommended filenames (so you can compare quickly):

• codex-task1-diff.png, cursor-task1-diff.png, antigravity-task1-diff.png
• codex-task2-tests.png, cursor-task2-tests.png, antigravity-task2-tests.png
• codex-task3-ui.png, cursor-task3-ui.png, antigravity-task3-ui.png

Strengths and tradeoffs

Codex strengths

• Works across CLI, IDE, and cloud tasks
• Handles multi-file changes and longer tasks
• Good for code review and automation workflows

Tradeoffs: You need to be clear in your prompts and review changes carefully. Autonomous tools can make wrong assumptions without context.

Cursor strengths

• Very fast in-editor assistance
• High quality autocomplete and inline edits
• Comfortable for daily coding and refactors

Tradeoffs: It is best when you drive the changes. It is less "hands off" than a cloud agent.

Antigravity strengths

• Agent-first, multi-step execution
• Direct access to editor, terminal, and browser
• Strong for orchestration and complex workflows

Tradeoffs: The more autonomy you allow, the more you need controls and approvals to prevent mistakes.

Which one should you choose?

Use this simple filter:

• You want to delegate tasks and review outputs -> Codex
• You want the fastest in-editor experience -> Cursor
• You want a multi-agent workflow that runs tasks end-to-end -> Antigravity

If you are unsure, start with the tool that matches your daily workflow. Most developers are in their editor all day, so Cursor is often the fastest to adopt. If you already think in tasks, Codex or Antigravity can be a better fit.

Team use cases

Solo developer: Cursor or Codex. Cursor is great for rapid editing, while Codex is great for delegating tasks like adding tests or refactors.

Small team: Codex plus Cursor. Use Cursor for day-to-day edits and Codex for background tasks like code review or cleanup.

Enterprise team: Codex or Antigravity depending on how much autonomy you want. If you want strict controls, use structured workflows and approvals.

Safety and review practices

Agentic tools can be powerful and risky at the same time. A few habits reduce mistakes:

• Use clear, scoped prompts
• Ask the tool to explain its plan before execution
• Run tests before merging
• Review file changes line by line

These habits matter regardless of which tool you choose.

How to evaluate quickly

If you do not want to spend weeks testing, try this simple evaluation:

1. Pick one real task from your backlog
2. Try the task in each tool
3. Measure time saved and quality of output
4. Decide which one you would pay for

Repeat with a bug fix task and a refactor to see consistency. Consistency matters more than one impressive demo. Track regressions over a week too.

The best tool is the one that actually ships code faster for your team.

Red flags that mean "not the right fit"

• It changes unrelated files even with strict instructions
• You spend more time reviewing than coding
• It produces code you would never merge
• You stop trusting the output without a manual rewrite

Pricing and licensing (how to think about cost)

Pricing changes often, so focus on value per hour saved. Ask these questions:

• How many hours per week does the tool save?
• Does it reduce review time or create more review overhead?
• Can your team standardize on one tool to reduce confusion?

A tool that saves even a few hours per week can pay for itself, but only if quality remains high.

Example workflows

Here are simple examples of how teams use each tool:

• Codex: Create a task like "add tests for the checkout flow" and let the agent make the changes, then review the PR.
• Cursor: Use autocomplete to write the test quickly and use inline edits to refactor blocks of code.
• Antigravity: Assign an agent to run tests, fix failing files, and verify results before reporting back.

These workflows match the core design of each tool, which is why they feel different.

Output quality tips

No matter which tool you choose, quality depends on how you use it. Provide clear context, keep tasks scoped, and always run tests. AI tools are fast, but they still need human judgment.

Final checklist before you choose

• I ran the same three tasks in each tool
• I scored each tool with the same rubric
• I captured screenshots for a clean comparison
• I tested at least one bug fix with real output
• I know which tool fits my daily workflow

FAQ

Are these tools replacements for a human developer?

No. They are accelerators. You still need a developer to plan, review, and ship changes.

Can I use more than one?

Yes. Many teams use Cursor for editing and Codex or Antigravity for delegated tasks.

Which is best for beginners?

Cursor is usually the easiest because it feels like a normal editor with better autocomplete.

Which is best for large refactors?

Codex or Antigravity. They are better at multi-file changes and longer tasks.

Do these tools work offline?

Generally no. Most AI coding tools require an internet connection for model access.

Related guides

• AI-assisted blogging workflow (without getting flagged as spam)
• Modern web performance stack for content sites

Codex, Cursor, and Antigravity are powerful in different ways. Choose the one that matches how you like to work, then build a simple review process so the AI helps you ship without surprises. Test it in practice.