Antigravity SDK vs. Cursor CLI

Vergleich von Antigravity SDK und Cursor CLI im Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, einschließlich Benchmark-Werten, Kosten, Ausführungszeit und Tokenverbrauch.

Einzelheiten zu unserer Methodik finden Sie auf unserer Methodikseite.

Weitere Vergleiche entdecken
vs

Wichtigste Ergebnisse

Coding Agent Index

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.4 · Higher is better

Zeit pro Aufgabe

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better

Kosten pro Aufgabe

Average API cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

Vergleich

Direkter Vergleich von Antigravity SDK und Cursor CLI.

Programmieragenten-Vergleich

Metrik
Antigravity SDK
Gemini 3.8 Flash (high)
Cursor CLI
GPT-5.5 (medium)
Analyse
Agent-Harness
Antigravity SDK
Cursor CLI
Repräsentatives Modell
Gemini 3.8 Flash (high)
GPT-5.5 (medium)
Coding Agent Index
59
47
Antigravity SDK hat einen höheren Coding Agent Index als Cursor CLI
DeepSWE
61%
37%
Antigravity SDK hat einen höheren DeepSWE-Wert als Cursor CLI
Terminal-Bench v2.1
81%
76%
Antigravity SDK hat einen höheren Terminal-Bench v2.1-Wert als Cursor CLI
SWE-Atlas-QnA
35%
28%
Antigravity SDK hat einen höheren SWE-Atlas-QnA-Wert als Cursor CLI
Kosten pro Aufgabe
$2.01
$2.00
Cursor CLI hat geringere Kosten pro Aufgabe als Antigravity SDK
Zeit pro Aufgabe
7.6m
6.4m
Cursor CLI hat eine geringere Zeit pro Aufgabe als Antigravity SDK
Runden pro Aufgabe
147.4
77.8
Cursor CLI hat weniger Runden pro Aufgabe als Antigravity SDK
Token-Nutzung pro Aufgabe
19.8M
4M
Cursor CLI hat eine geringere Token-Nutzung pro Aufgabe als Antigravity SDK
Cache-Trefferquote
86%
89%
Cursor CLI hat eine höhere Cache-Trefferquote als Antigravity SDK

Modellvarianten

Bewertete Modellvarianten für Antigravity SDK und Cursor CLI.

Modellvarianten

Antigravity SDK
Gemini 3.8 Flash (high)
59
61%
81%
35%
$2.01
7.6m
19.8M
Antigravity SDK
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
57
56%
87%
27%
$1.40
6.4m
15.1M
Cursor CLI
GPT-5.5 (medium)
47
37%
76%
28%
$2.00
6.4m
4M
Cursor CLI
Opus 4.7 (medium)
47
32%
75%
34%
$2.72
13.8m
5.7M
Cursor CLI
Composer 2.5
38
16%
68%
31%
$0.09
10.4m
3.7M
Cursor CLI
Composer 2.5 Fast
38
16%
68%
31%
$0.56
7.9m
4.3M

Leistung

Leistung im Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.4 incorporates 3 benchmarks: DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2.1, and SWE-Atlas-QnA · Higher is better
Since benchmarking, we have observed a higher rate of content safety filtering on this endpoint.

The Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index is a composite score built from DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2.1, and SWE-Atlas-QnA.

It is useful for quick comparison, but it should be read alongside the per-eval breakdowns. Two agents with similar index values can still have different strengths across repository tasks, terminal workflows, and rubric-based evaluations.

Token-Nutzung

Token-Verbrauch im Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Token-Nutzung pro Aufgabe

Durchschnittliche Eingabe-, Cache- und Ausgabe-Tokens pro Aufgabe
Prompt cache hit rates can vary significantly by provider routing, which can materially change effective cost.

Non-cached input tokens sent to the model, including prompts, instructions, tool context, and task context that were not served from prompt cache.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. Gesamt-Tokens

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. durchschnittliche Gesamt-Tokens pro Aufgabe
Most attractive quadrant

Each point represents a coding-agent variant. Farther left means lower average total token usage per task, while higher on the chart means higher benchmark performance. Agents toward the upper-left achieve stronger results with fewer tokens.

Kosten

Pay-per-Token-API-Kosten im Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, basierend auf den aktuellen Preisen pro Token.

Kosten pro Aufgabe

Average pay-per-token API cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

This chart shows the average pay-per-token API cost per task across the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, spanning DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2.1, and SWE-Atlas-QnA.

Where applicable, that cost model includes standard input pricing, discounted cached-input pricing, separate cache-write charges, and output pricing rather than treating all prompt tokens as if they were billed at the same uncached input rate.

It is intended to show pay-per-token API cost, not consumer plan pricing or the full operational cost of deploying the system in production. Infrastructure, engineering, and supervision costs are not the focus of this metric.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. Kosten pro Aufgabe

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. durchschnittliche Pay-per-Token-API-Kosten pro Aufgabe (USD)
Most attractive quadrant
Pareto line

Each point represents a coding-agent variant. Farther left means lower average cost per task, while higher on the chart means higher benchmark performance. The most efficient agents sit toward the upper-left: stronger results at lower cost.

Ausführungszeit

Aktive Agent-Laufzeit im Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Zeit pro Aufgabe

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better

This chart uses agent wall time: how long the agent process was actively running on each task.

It does not include environment startup, verifier or judge time, or other harness overhead, so it is a cleaner comparison of how long the agent itself was working.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. Ausführungszeit

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. durchschnittliche Agent-Laufzeit pro Aufgabe
Most attractive quadrant

Each point represents a coding-agent variant. Farther left means shorter average agent runtime per task, while higher on the chart means higher benchmark performance. Agents toward the upper-left deliver stronger results in less active agent time.