Three AI coding tools, three very different ways of charging you. This breakdown lines up the free tiers, the $20 plans, the $100 to $200 power tiers and the hidden usage caps of Antigravity, Cursor and Claude Code, so you can pick the plan that matches how much you actually code.
Three AI coding tools can cost you $0 or $200 a month, and the sticker price is the least interesting part. What matters is how fast you hit the wall. Antigravity, Cursor and Claude Code all promise an agent that writes, edits and tests code for you, but they bill in completely different ways: a weekly quota you cannot see, a pool of dollars that drains with every request, or a rolling window that resets every few hours. If you pick on price alone, you will probably pick wrong.
This breakdown lines up what each tool charges, what the free plans really give you, and where usage limits bite. Prices in this space shift often, and third-party sources disagree on a few numbers (especially the mid and top tiers), so treat every figure below as a close approximation and check each vendor's pricing page before you pay.
💡 Quick take: Antigravity wins on free access, Cursor wins on editor polish and model choice, and Claude Code wins when you want a terminal agent that handles long, messy tasks and you are happy to pay for a Claude plan.
If you only have thirty seconds, here is the shape of it:
Each company charges for a different thing, and that shapes your experience more than the monthly number:
Antigravity is Google's agent-first IDE, built around the idea that you hand off tasks to agents and review the results. Its pricing page lists an Individual plan at $0 per month, which includes access to agent models, unlimited tab completions and command assistance, and what Google describes as basic weekly rate limits.
The free plan is generous on features and vague on numbers. You get the agent, the editor, tab completions and access to several models, including Claude models that run on a separate limit from the Gemini ones. What you do not get is a clear answer to "how many tasks can I run before I am cut off?"
In practice, light users report that the free tier is enough for small projects, bug fixes and weekend prototypes. Heavy agent sessions, especially long multi-file refactors, eat through the weekly allowance quickly, and once it is gone you wait for the reset or you upgrade.
💡 Tip: Spread your heavy tasks across models. Because the Claude models and the Gemini models draw from separate pools, switching when one runs dry can buy you extra working hours on the free plan.
Antigravity does not have its own subscription ladder. Extra capacity comes through Google AI plans:
| Plan | Approx. price per month | What changes |
|---|---|---|
| Individual (free) | $0 | Basic weekly limits, unlimited tab |
| Google AI Pro | About $20 | Higher quotas, faster refresh |
| Google AI Ultra (mid) | About $100 | Much larger agent allowance |
| Google AI Ultra (top) | About $200 | Roughly 20x the Pro limits |
Sources disagree on the exact naming and price of the upper tiers, and Google has repositioned them more than once. The pattern is stable though: $20 gets you meaningfully more room, and the $100 to $200 tiers are aimed at people who run agents all day.
Cursor is a fork of a popular code editor with AI baked into every corner: tab completion, inline edits, a chat panel and an agent mode. It is the most "editor first" of the three, and its pricing reflects a shift toward usage-based allowances.
Cursor's Hobby plan is free and includes a limited number of agent requests and completions. It is enough to see whether you like the workflow. It is not enough to build anything serious, because the limits arrive within a day or two of real use.
Here is how the paid ladder looks according to most current sources:
| Plan | Approx. price per month | Who it suits |
|---|---|---|
| Hobby | $0 | Trying it out |
| Pro | $20 | Daily use, moderate agent work |
| Pro+ | $60 | Heavy daily use |
| Ultra | $200 | Roughly 20x Pro usage, power users |
One source lists Pro+ at $40 rather than $60, which shows how quickly this page changes. Whatever the exact figure, the logic is the same: each tier multiplies the included usage, and you pay more for a bigger pool.
Cursor's allowance is dollar based. Each plan includes a monthly amount of model usage, and different models burn it at different speeds. A cheap, fast model stretches your plan for weeks. A top-tier reasoning model can drain it in days if you leave the agent running on a large codebase.
That is the source of most of the frustration in developer forums: two people on the same $20 plan can have wildly different months. If you stay on the default auto model selection, you get predictable usage. If you manually pick the most expensive model for everything, you will hit overage prompts early.
💡 Tip: Check your usage dashboard after your first week. If you are burning through the pool in ten days, switch your default to a cheaper model for routine edits and save the heavy model for planning and tough bugs.
Claude Code is Anthropic's agentic coding tool. It lives in your terminal (with editor integrations) and works by reading your project, planning, editing files and running commands. It is the least visual of the three and often the most capable on long, multi-step jobs.
Claude Code is not offered as a standalone free product. It comes bundled with paid Claude plans. Anthropic's free Claude plan gives limited chat usage on a five-hour and weekly rhythm, but you should not count on it for serious agent work. If your goal is to code for free, Claude Code is the weakest option of the three.
The ladder is short and easy to read:
| Plan | Approx. price per month | Usage level |
|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | Chat only, very limited |
| Pro | About $20 (about $17 billed annually) | Baseline Claude Code access |
| Max 5x | From about $100 | 5 times the Pro usage |
| Max 20x | About $200 | 20 times the Pro usage |
Pro is a fine starting point for light to moderate use. The jump to Max is where most full-time Claude Code users end up, because long agent sessions consume a lot of capacity.
Claude plans meter your usage in rolling five-hour windows, with a weekly limit layered on top. You can burn through a window in one intense afternoon, wait for the reset, and continue. The weekly ceiling is the real constraint for heavy users: once it is hit, you wait or upgrade.
This rhythm suits some people better than monthly dollar pools. You always know the next reset is a few hours away, and you can plan your big tasks around it.
Here are all three in one place:
| Feature | Antigravity | Cursor | Claude Code |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes, with agent access | Yes, limited trial | No standalone free tier |
| Entry paid plan | About $20 (Google AI Pro) | $20 (Pro) | About $20 (Claude Pro) |
| Power tier | About $100 to $200 | $60 to $200 | $100 to $200 |
| Limit style | Weekly quota, unpublished | Monthly dollar pool | Five-hour window plus weekly cap |
| Interface | Agent-first IDE | Editor with AI everywhere | Terminal and editor plugins |
| Model choice | Gemini plus Claude and others | Many models from several labs | Claude models only |
| Limit transparency | Low | Medium (dashboard) | Medium |
For zero spending, Antigravity is the clear winner. For $20 a month, the three are close, and the better choice depends on workflow: Cursor if you live in an editor, Claude Code if you prefer a terminal agent, Antigravity if you want the free tier as a safety net. For $200 a month, all three give you roughly twenty times the entry limits, and the question becomes which interface you want to stare at all day.
Price comparisons are abstract until you apply them to a real routine. Here is how it plays out for different people.
If you code a few hours a week, start with Antigravity's free plan. You get a real agent, no card required, and a limit that a casual user rarely hits. Cursor's Hobby plan works as a second option for tab completion practice.
Freelancers bill by the hour, so lost time costs real money. A $20 plan from Cursor or Claude is easy to justify when it saves even one hour a month. Many freelancers run a hybrid setup: Cursor Pro for daily editing and a Claude plan for big refactors, or Antigravity's free tier as overflow when the paid limit runs out.
Teams care about predictability. Cursor's dashboard and team plans make spending easier to forecast, while Claude's five-hour windows are harder to budget across many people. Antigravity's pooled quota is the least predictable of the three, so check how your team's usage behaves before standardizing on it.
Whatever you pick, a few habits make every plan last longer:
💡 Tip: Track your own pattern for two weeks before upgrading. Many people pay for a $200 tier when a $20 plan plus a free fallback would have covered them.
Much of the cost of these tools is the model underneath. If you want to see how different models handle your code, prompts and writing before choosing a subscription, you can try several large language models on Picasso IA:
Paste the same function, bug report or refactor request into each one and compare the answers. It takes a few minutes and tells you far more about which model fits your style than a pricing table does. Antigravity, Cursor and Claude Code are separate products and are not part of Picasso IA, but the models they rely on behave in similar ways, so a short test run helps you decide which plan is worth paying for.
Choosing between coding tools is only one part of building with AI. If you are also working on visuals for your project, such as product mockups, blog covers or app screenshots, Picasso IA puts text, image and video models in one place. Open the model list, pick a language model to sketch your idea, then move to an image model to bring it to life. Experiment freely, compare outputs side by side and keep what works.
Choose your language
