Open this card when you have a specific job in front of you and two tools to choose between: Claude Code and Antigravity. It isn't for comparing them in general. It is for making one decision about one task. The seven blocks follow the order the decision actually gets made: name the job, then check your workspace, your priorities, cost and risk, and finish with a short trial on your own prompt.
One idea holds the whole card together. The tool shapes how the model works, but the model sets the ceiling. Before you compare the tools, make sure you are comparing them on models of the same class. Prices, model names and release status reflect April 2026; check the current pricing pages before you decide.
1. Name the job, not the tool
Choosing "for good" ends in an argument nobody wins. Choosing for a specific task is something you can test.
- [ ] Write down in one sentence the task you want to hand to an agent this week.
- [ ] Decide what the output is: working logic (an automation, a report, a product) or something people look at (a website, an interface, a prototype).
- [ ] Note whether you are working inside an existing project or building from scratch.
- [ ] Check whether the task splits into a logic part and a visual part; if it does, write the two down separately.
- [ ] List three to five conditions that tell you the result is good, before you open either tool.
The question isn't "which tool is better". It's "which tool will do this particular job best".
2. Where you already work
Claude Code moves into the environment you have. Antigravity is a separate app you move into.
- [ ] Write down what you work in today: a terminal, the VS Code editor, a browser, no editor at all.
- [ ] You work in an editor and don't want to change it → Claude Code runs inside it as an extension or in its terminal.
- [ ] You don't use an editor → try the Claude Code desktop app or browser version alongside the Antigravity app.
- [ ] You want to watch several agents working in parallel in one view, or you need an agent that navigates real web pages → mark that as a point for Antigravity.
- [ ] Check which outside services you need (a repository, a database, a design tool) and whether they are available over MCP; both tools support it, and only the setup differs.
If you don't want to change where you work, that alone is an argument. Moving into a new environment has a cost.
3. Logic or looks
When the two tools ran the same prompts, the pattern was clear: Claude Code plans better, writes better copy and delivers well-reasoned logic with sources, while Antigravity produces stronger visual design and usually returns a result faster.
- [ ] The output mainly has to work well, hold a sensible structure or cite sources → mark Claude Code.
- [ ] The output mainly has to look good, with animation, depth and an overall sense of polish → mark Antigravity.
- [ ] Time to a first version matters most → mark Antigravity, but remember speed depends on the task and other tests have found the opposite.
- [ ] You are working in existing code and new pieces have to match your patterns and naming → mark Claude Code.
- [ ] The task has both parts → consider a combination: logic and structure in one tool, the visual layer in the other.
Claude Code thinks better; Antigravity designs better. Choose by what the output needs most.
4. Cost and limits
Neither tool charges a licence fee; you pay for model usage, measured in tokens. The cost depends on the plan, the model and the way you work.
- [ ] Check whether you already have a paid Claude plan or a Google AI subscription; either one may settle the question.
- [ ] You want to try working with an agent before committing → Antigravity has an entry tier with no subscription fee and weekly limits, which run out quickly on real work.
- [ ] You plan heavy daily use → expect a higher-tier plan; by April 2026 pricing, the top tiers of the two tools cost about the same.
- [ ] You intend to use non-Gemini models inside Antigravity → check the limits, which can be very tight even on the Pro plan.
- [ ] Write down how you will keep token use in check: short sessions, one task per session, a regular look at your remaining limit.
You pay for the model, not the tool. Managing tokens is a skill that carries over to any tool.
5. Maturity and risk
A tool you invest time in should run reliably and develop faster than your needs grow.
- [ ] The task is going into daily production work → mark Claude Code, which in April 2026 is a production release with frequent updates.
- [ ] You can live with preview-stage instability (login problems, bugs on Windows, agents stuck in loops) → Antigravity in public preview is an option.
- [ ] The project will run over many days → save the project rules to a file and check every few sessions that the agent still follows them; Antigravity has a documented tendency to drift from rules set at the start, though every agent does this to some degree.
- [ ] Plan your response to context loss: start a new chat when the agent slows down noticeably or loses earlier instructions; in Claude Code you can also compress the conversation history.
On long work the winner is the tool that keeps to the rules and still holds up in week three, not the one that returned the first version fastest.
6. A trial on your own prompt
Someone else's test tells you how the tools handle someone else's task. Only your own prompt tests yours.
- [ ] Write one prompt for the task from block 1 and send it unchanged to both tools.
- [ ] Set comparable models, ideally the strongest available in each tool.
- [ ] For a task that needs thinking through, turn on planning mode in both and compare the plans before you let either one execute.
- [ ] Check whether either tool asked about the audience or the goal; if neither did, add that information to the prompt on your next attempt.
- [ ] Judge both results against your conditions from block 1, not on first impressions.
- [ ] For reports and analysis, check that the result cites sources; without them you have to take the content on trust.
One prompt sent to both tools and judged against your own conditions tells you more than any ranking.
7. The decision and how you'll work
- [ ] Write down the tool you chose and one sentence on why it suits this task.
- [ ] If you chose a combination, write down which part of the task goes to which tool.
- [ ] Set a session rule: one session, one task, start fresh often.
- [ ] Before deciding a tool has failed, check that the prompt was precise and the plan was reviewed; a weak result often comes down to how the tool was used.
- [ ] Put a date on the calendar to review this decision; both tools and their prices change quickly.
Skills transfer. Learn one tool well and you'll find your way around the other quickly, so the choice isn't permanent.
After the decision
An empty box on this card rarely hurts straight away. It shows up a few weeks later: as a limit that runs out by midday, an agent that stopped following the rules, or a good-looking page whose logic nobody thought through. When that happens, go back to the block the box came from.
The principle I take from this: you fit the tool to the task, not the task to the tool. If you tick only blocks 1 and 6 today, your choice will rest on your own work rather than on someone else's test.