For a while, I kept both windows open side by side each morning — Cursor 3 running parallel agents in one, Antigravity handing a design off to its orchestrator in the other. Building a single app as an indie developer, I slowly realized these two tools look similar but fit the hand in different places.
On April 2, 2026, Cursor shipped its third major version. The headline feature is Agents Window, which lets you run multiple AI agents in parallel on the same project. Antigravity, meanwhile, has kept updating in the same window of time. Here's my honest, hands-on take — less about which is "better" and more about which one fits which kind of work.
What's New in Cursor 3
Cursor 3 isn't just a polish release. The core additions are:
- Agents Window: Spin up multiple agents simultaneously, each handling a discrete subtask. One agent can write tests while another refactors a module — both running without blocking each other.
- Background agents: Fire off tasks asynchronously and keep editing. Results surface in a dedicated panel when ready.
- Claude Opus 4.6 support: Cursor now lets you route tasks to Claude Opus 4.6 natively, alongside GPT-4.1 and Gemini 3.1 Pro.
- Overhauled UI: Cleaner panels, better keyboard navigation, and a more focused chat experience.
The Agents Window in particular changes the feel of the tool. Larger tasks that used to require sequential passes can now be split and parallelized. It's fast.
How Antigravity's Agent Model Compares
Antigravity was built with agents as a first principle, not a feature bolted on later. AgentKit 2.0 uses an orchestrator-worker model: a planning agent breaks a task into subtasks, then routes each to one of 16 specialized agents (UI, testing, deployment, etc.).
The key difference from Cursor 3's Agents Window is in who's doing the coordination. Cursor 3 expects you to define the parallel tasks yourself — you decide what runs in each window. Antigravity's orchestrator handles that decomposition automatically, which feels closer to "describe the goal, get the result."
Neither approach is universally better. Cursor 3's manual model gives more control. Antigravity's automated delegation works better when you want to stay out of the weeds.
MCP Support: A Real Differentiator
This is one area where the gap between the two tools is notable.
Cursor 3 has solid MCP (Model Context Protocol) support. You can connect GitHub, Figma, Notion, Linear, Jira, and many other tools via the growing MCP ecosystem. The integration is clean and the configuration is straightforward. If your workflow involves pulling context from external tools, Cursor 3 handles this well out of the box.
Antigravity, as of April 2026, does not offer native MCP support. External integrations go through its Builder and API connection system, which is capable but operates on Antigravity's own protocol rather than MCP. For teams that have already standardized on MCP servers, this means one more layer of translation.
This isn't a dealbreaker for everyone — Antigravity's native integrations cover a lot of common ground — but it's worth factoring in if MCP connectivity is central to how you work.
Cost and Credit Models
Cursor 3 uses a subscription model (Pro and Business tiers) with monthly caps on fast model usage. The parallel agents in Agents Window consume more tokens per session, so heavy users may hit limits faster than before.
Antigravity runs on a credit system. Usage is pay-as-you-go, and since Gemini 3.1 Pro is the default backbone model, the credit efficiency is generally favorable for individual developers who don't hit consistent high-volume usage.
For a solo developer running Antigravity on a typical day, monthly costs often land below what a Cursor Pro subscription would cost. For a team with consistent heavy usage, the comparison gets more nuanced.
Model Flexibility
Cursor 3 lets you choose between Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-4.1, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and others on a per-task basis. This flexibility is useful when you want to route creative tasks to one model and code-heavy tasks to another.
Antigravity defaults to Gemini 3.1 Pro and offers Claude Opus 4.6 as a built-in option. The model selection is slightly narrower than Cursor 3, but for most coding workflows, Gemini 3.1 Pro handles the heavy lifting well.
How I Actually Split Work Between Them
The theory matters less than how the split plays out day to day, so here's what I've settled into.
For a brand-new app, I lean on Antigravity. In the early stages — screen layout, initial directory structure, the parts where there's no single right answer — handing the whole thing to the orchestrator and letting it "shape something first" is simply faster. I don't have to hold every small decision, which frees up mental room.
When I'm editing a codebase that already works, I switch to Cursor 3. Here, leaning on the AI too much can rewrite places I didn't intend to touch. Being able to say "just this scope" or "just this file" in the Agents Window — the more manual control — is reassuring.
Concretely, this is where I landed:
- New features from scratch: Antigravity's orchestrator, from design onward
- Refactoring existing modules: Cursor 3's Agents Window, scoped and parallel
- External service integrations (GitHub, Notion, etc.): Cursor 3, where MCP is ready
- Firebase / Gemini API work: Antigravity, closer to the Google ecosystem
Since settling into this split, I've had fewer moments of undoing work than when I insisted on picking just one tool. In hindsight, choosing a single IDE had quietly become the goal, rather than shipping the app.
Which One Should You Use?
After weeks with both, here's my honest take:
If you value MCP connectivity, prefer explicit control over parallel workflows, and are already at home in a VS Code-style environment — Cursor 3 is a strong choice. The Agents Window is genuinely useful for large codebase work.
If you prefer letting the IDE figure out task decomposition, you're building in the Google ecosystem (Firebase, Gemini API, Android), and you want an agentic experience that feels more autonomous — Antigravity fits that profile better.
The good news is that you're not forced to pick one permanently. Many developers use both, depending on the project. Run Antigravity for new projects where you want agentic acceleration, and Cursor 3 when you need fine-grained control over parallel agent execution.
Looking back
Cursor 3's Agents Window is a real advancement — not a marketing feature. It shifts how you can structure long-horizon coding tasks. But Antigravity's AgentKit 2.0 orchestration model still has a meaningful edge when it comes to automated task planning and Google ecosystem integration.
If you try just one starting today, choose based on whether the code ahead of you is new or an existing change. That single question tells you a lot about which one will fit first. Thanks for reading — I hope this helps you find your own split.