Antigravity SDK vs. Grok Build

Vergleich von Antigravity SDK und Grok Build 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 v1.3 · Higher is better

Time per Task

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better

Cost per Task

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

Comparison

Side-by-side comparison of Antigravity SDK and Grok Build.

Coding Agent Comparison

Metric
Antigravity SDK
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
Grok Build
Grok 4.5 (high)
Analysis
Agent Harness
Antigravity SDK
Grok Build
Representative Model
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
Grok 4.5 (high)
Coding Agent Index
56
64
Grok Build has a higher Coding Agent Index than Antigravity SDK
DeepSWE
56%
60%
Grok Build has a higher DeepSWE score than Antigravity SDK
Terminal-Bench v2
84%
85%
Grok Build has a higher Terminal-Bench v2 score than Antigravity SDK
SWE-Atlas-QnA
27%
48%
Grok Build has a higher SWE-Atlas-QnA score than Antigravity SDK
Cost per Task
$0.00
$2.59
Antigravity SDK has a lower cost per task than Grok Build
Time per Task
6.3m
16.5m
Antigravity SDK has a lower time per task than Grok Build
Turns per Task
109.5
60.9
Grok Build has a lower turns per task than Antigravity SDK
Token Usage per Task
15M
3.6M
Grok Build has a lower token usage per task than Antigravity SDK
Cache Hit Rate
87%
93%
Grok Build has a higher cache hit rate than Antigravity SDK

Model Variants

Evaluated model variants for Antigravity SDK and Grok Build.

Model Variants

Antigravity SDK
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
56
56%
84%
27%
$0.00
6.3m
15M
Grok Build
Grok 4.5 (high)
64
60%
85%
48%
$2.59
16.5m
3.6M

Performance

Performance across the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.3 incorporates 3 benchmarks: DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2, 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, 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 Usage

Token consumption across the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Token Usage per Task

Average input, cache, and output tokens per task
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. Total Tokens

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. average total tokens per task
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.

Cost

Pay-per-token API cost across the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, based on current per-token pricing.

Cost per Task

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, 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. Cost per Task

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. average pay-per-token API cost per task (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.

Execution Time

Active agent runtime across the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Time per Task

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. Execution Time

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. average agent wall time per task
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.