100 Hours Testing Claude Code vs Antigravity (honest results)

Product(s) reviewed

• Claude Code (Claude Code / “Cloud Code”): an agentic coding platform built around Anthropic Claude models, presented primarily via a terminal-first CLI, with optional VS Code extension / desktop / web.
• Antigravity (Google Antigravity): an agentic coding platform built around Google Gemini models, presented as a standalone IDE (VS Code-like, but a separate app) with a multi-agent UI and a browser agent.

The video is framed as a 100-hours-style comparison (hundreds of hours testing claimed) to decide which tool to learn and use.

---

Key features compared

Shared (both)

• Agentic coding: breaks tasks into plans, can spawn sub-agents in parallel, and orchestrates execution across a codebase.
• File management + terminal execution.
• Project rules/instructions persist across sessions.
• MCP support (Model Context Protocol) with integrations to many external services (e.g., GitHub, databases, Playwright, etc.).
• Direct CLI access to run other tools (e.g., Git, Docker, NPM, Playwright, Google Workspace).

Claude Code – notable emphasis

• Terminal-first primitives; workflow built around your existing development environment.
• VS Code extension: inline diffs, plan review, file visibility, and @mentions.
• Feels “hackable” with more control over per-project behavior.
• Planning mode: described as strong for multi-file strategy (read-only first, clarification questions), with adjustable reasoning depth (mentions “Ultra Think”).

Antigravity – notable emphasis

• Standalone IDE (not “run inside VS Code”).
• A manager view to observe multiple agents working across workspaces.
• Includes a built-in browser agent that can navigate real web pages.
• More packaged, purpose-built environment for agent workflows.
• Planning exists, but the creator believes Claude Code’s planning is stronger, based on tests shown.

---

Setup & user experience

Claude Code

• Multiple entry points:
  • CLI (install via NPM, run via a command).
  • VS Code extension (more feature-complete than most new users need; CLI-only advanced features exist).
  • Desktop app (more user-friendly than terminal-only).
  • Web version (no install).
• Creator’s preference: use VS Code view for file visibility rather than staring at a terminal.

Antigravity

• Single front door: download and run the IDE.
• CLI exists mainly to launch the IDE; no comparable VS Code integration in the same way.

---

Output quality & what the creator found

Claude Code strengths (video conclusion)

• Better “thinks before it acts” planning, especially for multi-file work.
• Better integration with existing codebases:
  • reads project structure and naming patterns,
  • generates code that “fits” rather than feeling bolted on.
• Research/reporting quality in the planning test:
  • includes sources/citations,
  • better layout/styling.
• Focus on real code quality / production reliability:
  • chosen as the winner for code correctness and structured deliverables.

Antigravity strengths (video conclusion)

• Design and UI/UX “taste”:
  • feels more visually appealing for web apps/landing pages.
• App/front-end generation:
  • In a cited independent 21-day test across 12 projects:
    • 94% clean, passing (no errors/style issues)
    • ~73% tasks completed without human intervention
    • ~60–70% development time reduction
• Speed in practice:
  • in test executions, Antigravity often finished first.

---

Benchmarks, metrics, and ratings mentioned

SWE-bench Verified (industry benchmark)

• Claude Opus 4.6 in Claude Code: 80.9%
• Gemini 3 Pro in Antigravity: ~76.2%
• Caveat: not perfectly apples-to-apples since Google’s methodology is not fully published.

Reported productivity improvements (not controlled studies)

• Anthropic engineering (Claude Code):
  • 50% productivity gain
  • 67% more PRs merged per engineer per day
• Independent test for Antigravity:
  • 60–70% faster development (directionally consistent with time savings)

Speed comparison for a “representative task”

• Claude Code: ~4 minutes
• Antigravity: ~8 minutes
• Note: the creator reports that later live tests sometimes made Antigravity feel faster.

Live test outcomes (qualitative “winners”)

1. Test 1 (no planning, one-shot habit tracker full-stack app)

   • Logic: Claude Code preferred
   • Design: Antigravity preferred
   • Overall: both met requirements, but preferences split (logic vs design).

2. Test 2 (planning mode: 3-page PDF research report on AI trends for SMBs)

   • Claude Code winner:
     • more thoughtful planning,
     • sources included,
     • better report quality/style.
   • Antigravity:
     • produced a PDF quickly,
     • no citations,
     • asked fewer targeted questions,
     • weaker formatting.

3. Test 3 (landing page design request, no questions allowed, no brainstorm/front-end design skills for either)

   • Claude Code: better copy and structure
   • Antigravity: better design/feel and visuals
   • Creator’s preference leaned toward Antigravity for overall page look.

---

Pros

Claude Code (as presented)

• Better planning and multi-file strategy.
• Better research/report quality (citations, structure, layout).
• Better codebase-fitting output and code quality.
• Production released with frequent updates (multiple releases per week).
• More configurable/hackable with more workflow control.

Antigravity (as presented)

• Better design aesthetics and UI/UX polish.
• Often faster to complete in real tests.
• More beginner-friendly MCP install via visual panel.
• Built-in browser agent for real web navigation tasks.
• Easier free-tier trial (“test before committing”).

---

Cons / limitations mentioned

Claude Code

• Token/cost risks from tooling/model usage.
• Reported caching bug (March 2026) inflating token costs by ~10–20x; Max Plan users could drain a session in under 2 hours (acknowledged by Anthropic).
• Context loss can occur for both; keep sessions focused (best practice: one task per session and start fresh).
• Some CLI-only advanced features exist (though the extension covers most users).

Antigravity

• Public preview instability (as of April 2026):
  • login issues reported,
  • occasional Windows bugs,
  • agents stuck in loops.
• Quota/rate-limit confusion:
  • pro users locked out for a full week after hitting limits,
  • credit system unclear (what credits buy).
• Model rate limits for premium models can be restrictive (users locked out after one session even on Pro).
• Potential guideline drift on longer projects (not unique, but called out):
  • may ignore initial rules by ~day 3.

---

Integrations & extensibility (setup differences)

• MCP:
  • Claude Code: CLI/config-driven server setup (command or JSON config editing).
  • Antigravity: visual MCP panel to install MCPs (more beginner-friendly), though advanced setups still require config editing.
• Both: can use any terminal CLI tools, including running Claude Code CLI from inside Antigravity’s terminal if desired.

---

Pricing summary (as stated)

Claude Code

Requires a paid Claude plan:

• Pro: $20/month
• Max: $100/month (5× Pro usage) or $200/month (20× Pro usage)

Overages possible via API rates; model swaps can be cheaper but may reduce value (Opus praised specifically).

Antigravity

Tied to Google AI subscription:

• Free tier: basic access; rate-limits run out quickly
• Gemini AI Pro: $20/month (higher rate limits; refresh every 5 hours) + 2 TB storage + $10 monthly Google Cloud credits
• Gemini AI Ultra: $250/month (highest rate limits)

Some premium-model usage can still be restrictive (locked out after a session reported).

Overall pricing conclusion

• At top tiers, they’re similar range: around $200–$250/month.
• Creator argues value vs hiring a human is very high (leverage framing), but stresses token/rate-limit management is important.

---

Overall verdict (concise recommendation)

• Best overall depends on what you’re doing:
  • Choose Claude Code if you care most about code correctness, real code quality, configurability, and production reliability, plus strong planning and reporting with citations.
  • Choose Antigravity if you prioritize design quality/visual polish and speed, and want easier “try it free” onboarding—accepting public-preview instability and some quota/model restrictions.

Personal recommendation from the creator: they personally use Claude Code, citing superior output quality and faster platform shipping cadence.

---

Unique points mentioned (complete list of distinct claims)

• Two leading market tools: Claude Code vs Google Antigravity.
• Both are agentic coding platforms that plan and parallelize sub-agents.
• Both manage files/folders and run terminal commands across codebases.
• Claude Code uses Claude models; Antigravity defaults to Gemini (swappable with extra setup).
• Claimed both are “free to use,” but you pay for tokens/model usage.
• Claude Code: terminal-first CLI built around your environment.
• Antigravity: standalone IDE, multi-agent manager view, and built-in browser agent.
• Claude Code setup options: CLI, VS Code extension (inline diffs, plan review, file visibility, @mentions), desktop app, web version.
• Claude Code CLI is most feature-complete; extension covers most users.
• Antigravity has one front door; no “run inside VS Code” option.
• Output quality depends heavily on chosen model (Haiku vs Opus; Gemini Flash vs Pro).
• Claude Code planning: dedicated mode mapping multi-file strategy read-only; deeper reasoning options; creator says it’s better than Antigravity planning.
• Both support persistent project rules/instructions, plugins, and custom commands.
• Claude Code described as understanding existing project structure/patterns better.
• Antigravity strength: building full apps/front ends from scratch.
• Cited independent Antigravity 21-day test: 94% clean passing, 73% tasks without intervention, 60–70% faster dev.
• Antigravity UI/UX stronger than Claude Code for “taste.”
• Trade-off: Antigravity may drift from early rules on longer projects (documented pattern; Google forums thread).
• SWE-bench Verified: 80.9% (Claude Opus 4.6) vs 76.2% (~Gemini 3 Pro).
• Not apples-to-apples due to methodology differences (Google unpublished).
• Claude Code productivity claims: 50% gain, 67% more PRs merged per engineer per day.
• Antigravity productivity claims: 60–70% faster dev (independent test).
• Token costs can burn quickly; token management is important broadly.
• Claude Code March 2026 caching bug: 10–20x token cost inflation; Max users could drain a session in <2 hours.
• Anthropic acknowledged and working on token optimization.
• Antigravity issues: Google quota instability; pro users locked out for a full week; credit system unclear.
• Speed/reliability: independent test claims Claude ~4 min vs Antigravity ~8 min, but creator’s lived experience sometimes differs.
• Reliability/maturity: Claude Code production with weekly updates; Antigravity public preview (as of April 2026) with login/Windows bugs/agent loops.
• Context loss applies to both; best practices: keep sessions focused and start fresh often.
• Claude Code has a compact command to compress history.
• Antigravity troubleshooting suggests starting a new chat if response exceeds 10 seconds.
• Update cadence: Claude Code shipping faster (Q1 2026: six major features; sometimes 3 releases in 5 days).
• Antigravity version numbers: 1.11 to 1.21 from Nov to Mar (smaller incremental improvements).
• Integrations: both support MCP with 1500+ MCP servers.
• MCP setup differences: Claude Code CLI-driven/config-edit; Antigravity visual MCP marketplace panel.
• Both support direct terminal access and any CLI.
• Pricing: Claude requires Claude plan (Pro $20; Max $100/$200); overages possible; API key option.
• Antigravity pricing tied to Google AI plans (Free; Pro $20; Ultra $250) including storage/credits details for Pro.
• Some users report restrictive rate limits for premium models within Antigravity even on Pro.
• Live test specifics:
  • Test 1: habit tracker full-stack; no planning; result Claude logic better, Antigravity design better; also Claude created structured folders (including “.superpowers” and docs/plan) while Antigravity created a heavier node_modules-like structure.
  • Test 2: AI trends SMB research PDF; planning on both; Claude included sources and better formatting; Antigravity produced PDF without citations.
  • Test 3: agency-owner landing page; no questions allowed; Claude better copy/structure; Antigravity better visuals.
• Final rule of thumb:
  • Antigravity: design + speed priority or free-trial exploration.
  • Claude Code: real code quality + configurability + production reliability.
• Creator’s final stance: Claude Code personally chosen.

---

Speakers / viewpoints

• Single main speaker/creator: provides nearly all comparisons, benchmark interpretations, and personal rule-of-thumb.
• The video references external entities for claims (Anthropic engineering, independent 21-day test, Google forums, and an Anthropic vs Google methodology caveat), but these are not separate on-camera speakers.