What Modern AI Coding Assistants Do (and How We Tested Them)
Modern AI coding assistants are development tools that can plan features, edit multi-file codebases, run commands, and refine implementations from natural-language prompts, aiming to double or better the real-world speed and quality of everyday software projects. For this AI coding assistants comparison, we looked at four contenders: Claude Code, Google Antigravity 2.0, Cursor 3.0, and VS Code’s new Codex-powered Agents view. Each was pushed beyond toy examples, with full projects such as a resume builder microsite or a complex B2B website. The focus was not on who could output the longest code block, but on AI developer productivity: how quickly could each assistant move from idea to working feature, how coherent was the architecture, and how smooth was the experience of collaborating with the tool in the middle of active development.
Claude Code and Google Antigravity: Planning and Execution at Double Speed
In a resume builder microsite project, pairing Google Antigravity for planning with Claude Code for execution changed the development pace. Antigravity handled project planning tasks such as breaking work into milestones, proposing architecture, and defining schemas and implementation tasks in minutes. Claude Code then took those milestones as explicit tasks, creating files, editing existing ones, running tests, and fixing lint errors directly in the repository. According to XDA’s testing, “that combination finished the build almost twice as fast as my usual VS Code workflow.” The key is specificity: Claude Code works best when you assign a clear milestone like building the template system or updating all PDF exports, rather than a vague “build everything” prompt. Used this way, it acts less like a chat bot and more like a focused, task-driven coding partner.
Google Antigravity 2.0 vs Cursor 3.0: Which Feels More Professional?
When the brief shifted to a complex B2B website, Google Antigravity 2.0 and Cursor 3.0 were tested under the same one-shot prompt: build a full Redstone diamond supplier site with filters, interactive product cards, and a premium design system. Both tools follow an agentic model, planning tasks, creating files, and making design decisions end to end. Cursor’s Composer agent stood out for speed, moving briskly through the task list, while Antigravity 2.0 focused more on higher-level structure and content decisions, behaving closer to a senior developer who understands the broader product story. Only one of them treated the requirements as a cohesive brief instead of a checklist. Antigravity’s mid-stream adjustment ability also mattered: you can refine sections and interactions while it works, without breaking its flow, which makes it better suited for iterative UI and content tuning on complex websites.
Claude Code vs Cursor and Antigravity: Goals, Adjustments, and Developer Workflow
Comparing Claude Code vs Cursor shows two different philosophies. Claude Code revolves around explicit tasks and its /goal command, which asks you to think in conditional workflows: define outcomes, constraints, and edge cases, then let it work across the repository. It shines when operating on a living codebase, updating many files at once and handling tests and linting as part of a milestone. Cursor 3.0, by contrast, leans into fast, agentic execution from a single prompt, especially for greenfield builds. Google Antigravity 2.0 sits somewhat in between: strong at upfront planning, but with the standout mid-stream adjustment feature that keeps its high-level plan intact while letting you refine copy, layouts, or logic in real time. In practice, Claude plus Antigravity favors structured teams, while Cursor suits rapid solo prototyping.
VS Code’s Codex Agents: Native AI Features Catch Up
VS Code’s new Agents view brings native AI features into the editor in a way that competes with standalone tools. Instead of a small Copilot sidebar, you get a dedicated, agent-first window where conversations and tasks take center stage. From there, VS Code’s agents can inspect your workspace, create or modify multiple files, run terminal commands, test changes, and fix errors in context. Planning is a strong use case: you can ask a Plan agent to break a feature into steps, review its proposal, then let it implement. The same flow works for new UI features or quick prototypes without constant window switching. While Codex within Agents view did not match the “twice as fast” results of the Claude Code and Antigravity pairing, it significantly closes the gap, especially for developers already committed to VS Code as their main environment.
