Antigravity 2.0 vs Antigravity IDE and CLI

Antigravity 2.0 vs Antigravity IDE and CLI

Use Antigravity 2.0 when the main job is managing agents across projects. Use Antigravity IDE when the work is centered on editing and reviewing code in an IDE. Use Antigravity CLI when the terminal is the natural control surface for agentic work, scripts, and asynchronous tasks.

The names describe related products, not three permanent bundles with guaranteed feature parity.

Google continues to ship changes quickly. Verify the current documentation, account boundary, plan, operating system, model access, and changelog before making a workflow decision.

flowchart TD
    A{"Where does the work naturally live?"}
    A -- "Across agents and projects" --> B["Antigravity 2.0"]
    A -- "Inside an editor" --> C["Antigravity IDE"]
    A -- "Inside a terminal" --> D["Antigravity CLI"]
    B --> E["Check project folders, permissions, and worktree mode"]
    C --> F["Check editor integration and current feature support"]
    D --> G["Check commands, automation, and account transition"]
    E --> H["Verify current changelog and plan"]
    F --> H
    G --> H

Antigravity 2.0 is the orchestration surface

Google's Antigravity 2.0 overview describes a standalone desktop application for managing agents that perform coding and knowledge work. It functions independently of an IDE.

The product page emphasizes a central command surface, dynamic subagents, scheduled tasks, artifacts, projects, voice transcription, skills, Model Context Protocol connections, and hooks.

The project is the organizing unit. A project can span multiple folders and apply scoped settings and permissions. Conversations can run directly in local folders or use isolated worktrees.

Choose this surface when the work involves several agent conversations, background tasks, project-level authority, or outputs that are easier to monitor through artifacts than through an open code editor.

It can still open or connect to coding work. The defining feature is that the application does not require the IDE to be the center of the experience.

Antigravity IDE is the editor-centered surface

The IDE keeps code navigation, editing, diffs, and agent interaction in the same visual environment.

E118 describes the earlier product as closely tied to a VS Code-style editor and an agent-management extension. Google's current changelog continues to list the Antigravity IDE as a separate product surface.

Choose the IDE when direct code inspection is continuous, the developer wants editor navigation beside the agent, or the team depends on an IDE-centered review loop.

Do not assume that a feature announced for Antigravity 2.0 exists in the IDE at the same time or behaves identically. The changelog separates product entries, and rollout can be gradual.

The IDE may also be a companion rather than the only surface. Google's 2.0 changelog records integration that can install or open the IDE from a project.

Antigravity CLI is the terminal-centered surface

Google's transition announcement describes Antigravity CLI as a Go-based terminal product. Google says it shares the Antigravity agent harness and supports asynchronous workflows, Agent Skills, hooks, subagents, and extensions under the Antigravity plugin model.

Choose the CLI when the terminal already owns the workflow, commands need to compose with scripts, or the user wants agent work without switching to a desktop management surface.

The terminal can be especially useful for repeatable checks, repository work, infrastructure tasks, and non-interactive execution. It can also make broad authority less visible if permissions and working directories are not explicit.

The transition from Gemini CLI has account-specific boundaries. Google's announcement recorded a June 18, 2026 change for consumer service through Gemini CLI and Gemini Code Assist IDE extensions. It stated different conditions for enterprise licenses and paid Gemini or Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform API keys.

That dated announcement is a migration record, not a permanent access matrix.

The same harness does not make the surfaces identical

A shared agent harness can align core behavior and improvements. It does not erase differences in interface, workflow, available controls, rollout, local integration, or review experience.

Antigravity 2.0 makes projects and background conversations visible. The IDE keeps the code surface visible. The CLI keeps the shell and command history visible.

The right choice depends on what the human needs to inspect.

A person coordinating five bounded agent tasks may benefit from the standalone app. A developer resolving a difficult merge may need the IDE. An operator running a repeatable repository check may prefer the CLI. One project may use all three at different stages.

Isolation is a workflow decision

Google's projects documentation distinguishes local mode from new-worktree mode.

Local mode lets the agent operate in the active folders. That is useful for quick interactive work, but concurrent agents can touch the same state.

New-worktree mode creates isolated Git worktrees for conversations. That keeps the active checkout cleaner and can reduce conflicts between parallel agents. It also creates reconciliation work. Someone still has to review, test, and merge the result.

The surface does not remove the decision. Choose isolation from the risk of conflicting writes, the cost of merge work, and the need to preserve the current checkout.

Permissions travel with the project and task

The Antigravity permissions documentation uses Deny, Ask, and Allow rules. Projects can inherit global permissions and add project-specific controls.

That makes product choice partly an authority decision. A standalone project spanning several folders and MCP servers may have a broader execution surface than a single repository in the IDE. A CLI launched from the wrong directory may expose more local context than intended.

Do not choose unrestricted settings merely to reduce prompts. Decide which folders, commands, domains, tools, and external actions the task actually requires.

Pricing and models are not stable comparison fields

E118 discusses quotas, credits, models, and subscriptions. Those details were already uncertain in the recording.

They should not anchor an evergreen comparison. Current plan terms, promotions, usage meters, model availability, and account entitlements can change faster than the workflow distinction.

Use the current product pages and account interface for those facts. Record the verification date if a buying decision depends on them.

A practical decision

Start with the surface where the human review naturally happens.

If review means monitoring agents, artifacts, and project status, start with Antigravity 2.0. If review means reading and editing the code continuously, start with the IDE. If review means commands, diffs, and scripted output, start with the CLI.

Then check whether the work needs multiple folders, subagents, worktrees, external tools, background execution, or a migration from an existing Gemini workflow.

The Antigravity feature deep dive and current product page provide the launch and capability context. The changelog provides the date-specific reality.

E113 supplies the broader Google autonomous-workflow context. E120 asks what changes when the agent becomes a persistent coworker rather than a tool invoked for one task.

Editorial and authority note

This comparison was last verified July 28, 2026. It is not a permanent feature, plan, price, quota, model, account, security, compatibility, migration, or purchasing matrix. Product names, behavior, access, rollout, and entitlements can change. Current product, account, plan, security, technical, editorial, accessibility, and founder review remain required before publication.

AI assisted with research, structure, drafting, and validation. Dalton Anderson remains the attributed author and final editorial authority.