Antigravity, Claude Code, and Codex are the three tools most people choose right now, and while they all solve the same thing, the way they do it varies greatly. Two of them charge you before you do anything serious, and the third gives you borderline samples at a free level that you haven’t asked for your credit card yet. This may seem like an easy choice; just choose free, right?
Want to stay up-to-date on the latest developments in AI? The XDA AI Insider newsletter comes out weekly with in-depth information, tool recommendations, and hands-on coverage you won’t find anywhere else on the site. Subscribe by changing your newsletter preferences!
Antigravity gives you a border agent platform for zero dollars
The free tier is not a deleted demo, it’s the actual product
The free tier of Antigravity allows access to Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemini 3 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Opus 4.6, and GPT-OSS 120B on Windows, macOS, and Linux. The rate limits are modest, and Google has reduced them several times since launch, but the product itself is not knee-jerk. You still get unlimited tab completions, unlimited command prompts, and a full agent orchestration stack.
Claude Code’s free tier doesn’t get you anything. Claude code is not included in the free Claude plan, so the tier is $20/month Pro or an API key with token billing. Codex is technically on ChatGPT Free, although OpenAI itself considers it suitable for “quick coding tasks” and free users can’t buy when they run out of credits.
Where this free access to Antigravity really pays off is the workflow…
You get an Agent Manager that allows you to send up to 5 parallel agents to different parts of the same project (one refactoring authentication, one writing tests, one document development), running asynchronously in the background while you work on something else. You can direct each agent to a different model depending on the task, so, for example, Opus 4.6 with advanced thinking handles complex debugging, while Gemini 3 Flash writes repetitive code in a different agent.
The built-in Chrome browser allows agents to open a running app, navigate through the UI, click through streams, and record video reviews or screenshots that prove the feature works. It closes a loop for front-end work that the other two tools can’t (Claud’s Code and Codex can compile and run tests, but they can’t verify that the OAuth flow is actually rendering correctly in the browser).
Each task also creates Artifacts (implementation plans, task lists, differences, browser notes), you can leave inline comments in Google Docs style, and the agent adds your feedback continuously. MCP servers connect on top of everything. This free tier full agent template is a send, leave, return to review proof.
Once you pay anyway, Antigravity’s edge shrinks quickly
The other two are better at actual coding
Claude Code wins in depth of thought and multi-file work. Opus 4.6 with the 1M token context is what you get when changes touch dozens of files and the dependency graph is important, and Opus 5 has since been adopted as the default (thinking in terms of the 1M context standard), so the capability has only expanded. In one Express.js refactor is directClaude Codex caught the race condition Codex missed completely.
Codex leads by a significant margin in terminal automation. Codex CLI scored 77.3% in Terminal-Bench 2.0, compared to Claude Code’s 65.4%, and this 12-point gap is reflected in shell scripting, sysadmin, and CI/CD performance. Antigravity has no benchmark presence in this category. Codex also makes the token more efficient, completing that refactor in about a quarter of the tokens Claude’s code burned.
Both tools have ecosystem depth. Antigravity doesn’t match. Codex CLI is Apache 2.0 with kernel-level sandboxing, and Codex has 31 programmable event loops and thousands of MCP integrations. There are anti-gravity fences, but the ecosystem around them is thin.
Antigravity also has real problems in its own lane. On Antigravity, Opus 4.6 burns credits about 4x faster than Gemini, so Claude’s free-sounding pitch is off in one critical session before you’re locked out. Google has also cut free tier quotas several times and introduced a credit system in March 2026, so basically if you’re planning on a number today, keep in mind that it seems like a constantly moving target.
The most suitable for each of them
If you want to try agency coding without paying, Antigravity is your best bet. This is the only free tier category that gives you a complete product with border templates. Before committing to a subscription, I recommend experimenting, learning how to integrate AI tools into your workflow, learning how to code, whatever your goals are. Or, if you’re not looking for the most powerful coding models to run 24/7 and just want something decent to do, then Antigravity is the one to stick with long-term.
For interface work that requires visual inspection, again Antigravity. A built-in Chrome browser that navigates a running app, clicks streams, and records video proof that a feature works is truly unique. Nothing else in the category delivers this natively. However, depending on how much you rely on it, a Google AI subscription might make sense at this point.
Whether you’re refactoring a lot of files or writing production code that needs to be of the right quality the first time, Claude Code will be your best friend. The Opus 5 and 1M token context window with default thinking is what you need when the dependency graph is important and you need to maintain code. It’s a tool where getting it right on the first pass is more important than shipping fast.
For terminal heavy work, DevOps, CI/CD scripting, or high volume automated workflows where token cost is important, you may need Codex. Terminal-Bench’s leadership gives it an edge, and the token’s effectiveness extends further to the dollar. Codex is also the only one of the three that you can fork or embed in your tool.
Each of these belongs to a different place in your workflow
I finally got a Google AI subscription, but it was never for Antigravity, and now I get more perks. If it weren’t for NotebookLM and Gemini, I’d be able to access Antigravity’s freebies. But if you are willing to pay for a dedicated coding tool, Antigravity is probably not for you, the code quality gap is too wide.
