Google Jules vs. Antigravity: Where Each Coding Agent Fits

Jules and Antigravity overlap as coding agents, but I do not use them for the same job. Jules is the responsive web agent I reach for when I want a small fix handled quickly. Antigravity is more useful when I want to queue work, review a plan asynchronously, and keep my current task uninterrupted.

I started testing both through my Gemini AI Pro subscription. In daily use, the difference that matters most is not model quality in isolation; it is how each product asks for my attention.

Previously, I used the web interface for Codex. While powerful, I found the web UI to be incredibly heavy, often causing Google Chrome to hang or enter a “waiting” state. It created friction in what should be a quick process.

In contrast, Jules runs comfortably. The interface is snappy and responsive, which is critical when I want to iterate quickly. It isn’t perfect—it occasionally gets stuck in an infinite loop executing the same command—but for routine tasks like small bug fixes or package updates, it handles the job without the browser lag.

The standout feature for me, however, is Antigravity, specifically its “Agent Manager” mode.

Most chat-based AI tools require immediate, synchronous interaction. You type, you wait, you reply. It feels like a conversation that demands your full attention. Antigravity feels different; it is closer to sending an email to a colleague to handle a task in the background.

I can fire off a request and let it run parallel to my own work. I particularly appreciate two features:

1. Inline Comments on Plans: I can review the agent’s proposed plan and add comments directly in context before execution.
2. Task Queuing: This is the most significant UX improvement. If I think of a task while doing something else, I can explicitly queue it for later execution. It doesn’t force a context switch or interrupt my current “field work.”

Having these included in my existing subscription has been a welcome addition to my toolkit.