"Which is actually faster — Google Antigravity, Cursor, or Bolt?" I built the same app in all three to find out.
Most comparison articles list strengths and weaknesses without publishing the numbers that matter: how many minutes it actually takes, how much it costs per month, and how much rework the generated code requires. This article focuses on those numbers.
What I Built
Test task: A Todo app with authentication and data persistence.
Requirements:
- Email-based user registration and login
- Full CRUD operations for todos
- Real-time updates
- Mobile-responsive layout (responsive web or React Native)
This scope is intentional. Too simple and you can't see meaningful differences; too complex and environment-specific variables overwhelm the comparison.
Google Antigravity — Benchmark Results
Development time: ~38 minutes (including initial setup)
Antigravity's clearest advantage is the AGENTS.md context system paired with Planning Mode. Before writing any code, it proposes an architecture based on your requirements.
# AGENTS.md requirements
## Project: Todo App
- Auth: Firebase Auth (email)
- DB: Firestore
- Frontend: Next.js + Tailwind
- Deploy: Firebase Hosting
## Constraints
- Minimize third-party dependencies
- TypeScript strict mode
That upfront design phase meant almost zero rework during implementation. Generated code included type definitions and error handling from the start.
Code quality observations:
- TypeScript errors: 0
- Auth flow bugs: 0 (redirectAfterSignIn correctly configured)
- Responsive layout: automatically implemented
Cost: Completed within Google AI Studio's free tier for this workload.
Cursor — Benchmark Results
Development time: ~52 minutes
Cursor's strength is the in-editor experience — editing and refining existing code feels the most natural of the three. The interaction model is closest to what a senior developer in VSCode would expect.
For "build from scratch" tasks like this one, it required more granular direction than Antigravity. At points, it asked for disambiguation (signInWithRedirect vs. signInWithPopup) rather than making a sensible default choice.
Code quality observations:
- TypeScript errors: 2 (minor, immediately fixable)
- Auth flow bugs: 1 (mobile browser redirect issue)
- Responsive layout: basic breakpoints set, minor adjustments needed
Cost: Cursor Pro at $20/month. No API overages for this workload.
Bolt — Benchmark Results
Development time: ~29 minutes
Bolt was fastest. Project generation is nearly instant, and being able to verify the running app directly in StackBlitz removes a setup step that slows other tools.
The speed comes with a tradeoff.
Code quality observations:
- TypeScript errors: 8 (multiple
anytype shortcuts) - Auth flow bugs: 1 (session management gap)
- Responsive layout: basic structure correct
Bolt prioritizes "working minimum viable code." Before taking it to production, you'll need to audit types and add error handling that it doesn't generate by default.
Cost: Completed on free tier. Paid plans start at $20/month.
Looking back Table
| Google Antigravity | Cursor | Bolt | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development time | 38 min | 52 min | 29 min |
| TypeScript errors | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Auth bugs | None | 1 | 1 |
| Monthly cost (est.) | Free–paid | $20 | Free–$20 |
| Best suited for | Design-to-implementation | Existing code refinement | Rapid prototyping |
Which Tool to Choose
Choose Google Antigravity when you want consistent quality from design through implementation, especially with AGENTS.md-driven context for mid-to-large projects. For anything in Google's ecosystem (Firebase, GCP, Workspace), Antigravity's accuracy is noticeably higher than the other two.
Choose Cursor when you have an existing codebase and want AI assistance for refinement and extension. The editor experience is the most natural of the three for developers coming from VSCode.
Choose Bolt when you need a working screen in front of stakeholders quickly — prototypes, idea validation, early demos. The generated code needs quality review before production, but nothing matches the speed for getting to "something that runs."
My current workflow: Bolt for idea validation, Google Antigravity for design and implementation, Cursor for targeted fixes. No single tool wins in every phase. Using each where it's strongest produces better results than committing exclusively to one.