Google Antigravity feels promising on the surface, but in real-world developer usage, it struggles with some of the most critical aspects of productivity.
The biggest issue is poor memory of project context. It frequently forgets file structures, previously shared code, and architectural decisions within the same session. This makes it difficult to build anything non-trivial because you end up re-explaining the same context repeatedly.
Another major limitation is weak understanding of reusability and patterns. When you try to enforce coding rules, reusable components, or architectural constraints, the model often ignores them or applies them inconsistently across responses.
It also struggles with maintaining conversation rules and constraints. Even when you clearly define guidelines (e.g., “always use this structure”, “never do X”, “follow these conventions”), it tends to drift over time, which breaks workflows that depend on consistency.
In short, while it may be okay for quick questions, it’s not reliable for serious development work where memory, structure, and long-term context actually matter.
Final Verdict: Good for casual use. Frustrating for real engineering workflows. Claude code is much better than antigravity giving the best work for long engineering workflows
Antigravity not worth the money as better things Claude Code is providing for almost same price
the question is my friend compared to what what is the tool you prefer i honestly don’t face this issue that much as i like to write detailed plan files and restart the session a lot i also use claude code and cursor on the same files so I have to handle the context differently but i’d like to know what you feel was better handling your issue?
Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with us,
Your feedback is invaluable as we work to continuously improve the Antigravity experience.
Honestly, Claude Code wins for context handling — and here’s why it’s fundamentally different:
Claude Code keeps context alive across the session differently. It reads your actual files directly rather than relying on what’s been pasted into the chat. So even if you start a new session, it can cat, grep, or traverse your whole codebase on demand. It doesn’t remember — it re-reads, which is more reliable.
Your approach (detailed plan files + session restarts) is actually the correct mental model. A PLAN.md or CONTEXT.md that Claude Code reads at the start of every session is basically a persistent memory layer you control. That’s cleaner than trusting any tool’s implicit memory.
The Cursor + Claude Code overlap you have is the real challenge. Both tools want to be the “source of truth” for what’s happening in the codebase. The way to handle it:
Let Cursor handle autocomplete and quick inline edits
Use Claude Code for anything requiring multi-file reasoning, refactors, or where you need it to deeply understand architecture
Keep a CLAUDE.md at the root of your projects — Claude Code actually reads this automatically on session start, which is perfect for your style
Your plan-file habit essentially solves the context problem better than any tool feature. The only real edge Claude Code has over antigravity is that it can verify its assumptions by actually reading the files — it won’t hallucinate what your schema looks like because it just checks it.