The agentic IDE that ranked #1 last month isn't Cursor anymore.
One year ago, AI in your editor meant a completion suggestion in the gutter. Today it means agents that read your repo, edit multiple files, run tests, fix failures, and prepare a commit while you review the diff — and the landscape has shifted enough that the old default choice is no longer the obvious one.
We compared the five tools teams are actually evaluating: Cursor, Windsurf, Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI, and Google Antigravity. One undercuts Cursor by 25% on price. One has a security issue Google called "intended behavior." Here's what the marketing pages don't tell you.
In this review, we compare five agentic coding products teams are actively evaluating in 2026:
- Cursor
- Windsurf
- Claude Code
- OpenAI Codex CLI
- Google Antigravity
The goal is simple: help you choose the right tool for your workflow without getting trapped by marketing pages that look similar but hide major differences in cost model, security posture, and day-to-day usability.
What Makes a Tool "Agentic"?
The easiest way to understand the shift:
- Autocomplete tools predict the next token or line.
- Chat tools answer questions and generate snippets.
- Agentic tools execute multi-step work loops: understand context, plan changes, edit files, run commands, inspect output, iterate, and return a result.
In practical terms, a true agentic tool usually supports four capabilities:
- Whole-repo context (not just current file)
- Multi-file edits in one task
- Terminal command execution
- Iterative repair loop (detect failure, retry, fix)
All five tools in this article do this in some form, but they differ in where they run (IDE-native vs terminal-native), how they are priced, and how much operational control your team gets.
Cursor Review (2026)
Still the safe bet — but no longer the only serious option.
Cursor remains the default recommendation for most teams entering agentic workflows.
What Cursor does well
- Strong agent workflow in a familiar UI: Agent mode and Composer handle multi-file changes and iterative fix loops with relatively low friction.
- Fast editing experience: Cursor still feels like a first-class editor, not a chatbot embedded in an IDE.
- Model flexibility: Supports multiple frontier models for different tasks.
- Mature ecosystem momentum: Large user base, active documentation, and broad community adoption.
Where Cursor is weaker
- Pro-tier usage limits matter: Heavy users can hit request ceilings and feel quality/latency degrade mid-cycle.
- Business tier jump is material: Moving from individual use to team governance costs meaningfully more.
- Resource footprint: On larger repos, background agent flows can feel heavier than classic editor workflows.
Pricing snapshot
- Pro: around $20/month
- Business: around $40/user/month
Cursor is still the "safe" choice if you want a polished IDE-native agent right now and can accept premium pricing for team controls.
Windsurf Review (2026)
$15/month vs Cursor's $20 — and it just overtook Cursor on LogRocket's rankings.
Windsurf is the strongest pure competitor to Cursor and usually the first alternative teams pilot.
What Windsurf does well
- Aggressive price-to-capability ratio: Lower entry pricing than Cursor in many plans.
- Cascade agent workflow: Strong multi-file change orchestration with dependency-aware behavior.
- Enterprise posture: Security/compliance positioning is a core part of the pitch, not an afterthought.
- Improved market credibility: Product quality perception rose significantly after its platform iterations in 2025-2026.
Where Windsurf is weaker
- Smaller ecosystem depth than Cursor today.
- Context handling can be less consistent in very large, cross-cutting refactors.
- Team migration friction if your org already standardized heavily on Cursor workflows.
Pricing snapshot
- Pro: around $15/month
- Teams: around $30/user/month
If your team is cost-sensitive or compliance-heavy, Windsurf is often the highest-value trial alongside Cursor.
Claude Code Review (2026)
Claude Code is best understood as a terminal-native agent platform, not a standalone IDE replacement.
What Claude Code does well
- Deep repo reasoning for refactors and architecture-sensitive changes.
- Excellent command-line workflow for engineers who prefer terminal-first loops.
- Strong git-native behavior: easy to inspect, branch, and stage with explicit control.
- MCP extensibility: integrates with internal tools and external systems via Model Context Protocol.
Where Claude Code is weaker
- Not a standalone IDE: you typically pair it with VS Code, JetBrains, Cursor, or Windsurf.
- Learning curve for teams that are not terminal-native.
- Subscription coupling can be confusing depending on whether you use app plans or API billing.
Pricing snapshot
- Typically bundled with higher-tier Claude plans (for example Pro/Max) or consumed through API usage.
Claude Code is a strong choice if your team already likes terminal workflows and wants an agent that can do serious multi-step execution without moving to a new editor.
OpenAI Codex CLI Review (2026)
OpenAI Codex CLI targets the same terminal-first segment as Claude Code, with OpenAI's ecosystem advantages.
What Codex CLI does well
- Fast local execution model with terminal-native ergonomics.
- Useful multimodal hooks (for example screenshot/image input in coding workflows).
- MCP and automation support for integrating agent runs with external systems.
- Good fit for existing OpenAI customers already standardized on ChatGPT and OpenAI APIs.
Where Codex CLI is weaker
- Still maturing compared to older terminal-agent workflows.
- Not an IDE: best used as a complement to an editor, not a replacement.
- Plan dependency: value depends on your existing ChatGPT/API setup.
Pricing snapshot
- Typically tied to ChatGPT paid plans and/or API usage, depending on access path.
Codex CLI is worth serious evaluation if your team is already invested in OpenAI tooling and wants agentic execution in the shell.
Google Antigravity Review (2026)
Free right now — but researchers found it can be tricked into leaking credentials.
Antigravity is the most interesting new entrant because it pushes multi-agent orchestration and browser-connected workflows as first-class product behavior.
What Antigravity does well
- Native multi-agent framing for parallel task execution.
- Strong browser-integrated story for end-to-end workflow testing.
- Low-friction evaluation path during public preview.
- Large-context model positioning for broad task orchestration.
Where Antigravity is weaker
- Early-stage operational trust: still proving itself under real production pressure.
- Security concerns reported by researchers around prompt-injection style attacks and secret-handling behavior.
- Policy interpretation risk: if risky behavior is considered "expected," teams need strong internal guardrails before production use.
Pricing snapshot
- Public preview has been broadly accessible, with paid tiers expected as the platform matures.
Antigravity is promising for experimentation and workflow R&D, but most teams should treat it as a controlled pilot until security and governance details are clearer.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Tool | Typical Positioning | Approx Entry Price | Best For | Main Risk |
|---|---|---:|---|---|
| Cursor | IDE-native market leader | $20/mo | Teams wanting polished agentic IDE workflows now | Team-tier cost escalation |
| Windsurf | Cost-effective IDE challenger | $15/mo | Cost-sensitive teams and compliance-focused orgs | Smaller ecosystem depth |
| Claude Code | Terminal-native agent | Plan/API-based | Terminal-first engineers and deep repo refactors | Not a standalone IDE |
| OpenAI Codex CLI | Terminal-native OpenAI agent | Plan/API-based | OpenAI-centric teams and shell automation | Relative product maturity |
| Google Antigravity | Multi-agent newcomer | Preview/expected paid | Parallel-agent experimentation, browser-linked flows | Security/governance uncertainty |
Which Agentic IDE Should You Choose?
If you want a practical recommendation, use this:
- Most teams starting today: choose Cursor first.
- Best balance of quality, workflow polish, and ecosystem confidence.
- If budget pressure is high or compliance is central: test Windsurf in parallel.
- It often delivers a better cost-to-capability profile.
- If your team lives in terminal + git: choose Claude Code.
- Great for controlled, explicit agent workflows.
- If you are already OpenAI-first: trial Codex CLI.
- Lowest integration friction with existing OpenAI stack.
- If you are exploring next-gen multi-agent workflows: pilot Antigravity in a sandbox.
- Keep sensitive repos out until security posture is fully acceptable for your org.
In reality, many advanced teams run a hybrid stack:
- One primary IDE-native agent (Cursor or Windsurf)
- One terminal-native agent (Claude Code or Codex CLI)
That combination often delivers the best day-to-day velocity and fallback optionality.
What Most Reviews Miss: The Cost Visibility Problem
Agentic tooling costs are increasingly fragmented:
- IDE seat plans
- API overage/usage
- Separate model providers
- Team and enterprise add-ons
Once your team uses two or three agentic tools simultaneously, no single vendor dashboard gives you a complete picture of spend.
If you're evaluating these tools seriously, track the roll-out the same way you would cloud infrastructure:
- Set baseline spend before rollout
- Measure per-team adoption and usage intensity
- Compare engineering output and incident rates
- Watch for silent cost creep after month one
The winner isn't the tool with the best launch demo. It's the one that increases delivery speed without creating an unbounded cost curve.
Final Verdict
The gap between teams on agentic IDEs and teams still on autocomplete will widen in 2026.
The agentic IDE category is no longer early hype. It is now a real tooling layer with clear leaders, viable challengers, and meaningful platform risk differences.
If you need one-line guidance:
- Start with Cursor
- Benchmark Windsurf on cost/compliance
- Add Claude Code or Codex CLI if your team is terminal-native
- Keep Antigravity in pilot mode until governance confidence is high
The gap between teams that actively adopt agentic workflows and teams that stay in autocomplete-only mode will likely widen through 2026.