Llama 4 (Meta) vs Google Antigravity

Which one should you pick? Here's the full breakdown.

Llama 4 (Meta)

B
7.9/10

Meta's open-weights flagship family -- Scout (10M context), Maverick (multimodal 400B MoE), Behemoth in preview

Our Pick

Google Antigravity

A
8.0/10

Google's agent-first AI IDE -- deploys up to 5 autonomous coding agents in parallel on a VS Code fork

Powered by Gemini 3.1 Pro / Claude Opus 4.6 / GPT-OSS 120B (multi-model)

CategoryLlama 4 (Meta)Google Antigravity
Ease of Use5.08.0
Output Quality8.58.5
Value9.06.0
Features9.09.5
Overall7.98.0

Pricing Comparison

FeatureLlama 4 (Meta)Google Antigravity
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

Llama 4 Maverick (17B/400B MoE) benchmarks — Google Antigravity has no published benchmarks

BenchmarkScore
MMLU-Pro80.5%
GPQA Diamond69.8%
HumanEval88%
MMMU (multimodal)73.4%

Which Should You Pick?

Pick Llama 4 (Meta) if...

  • Better value for money (9/10)

Developers and teams who need a permissively-licensed open-weights model with strong tooling, long context (Scout), or multimodal (Maverick). Safe default choice given the ecosystem.

Visit Llama 4 (Meta)

Pick Google Antigravity if...

  • Easier to use (8 vs 5)

Developers working on large, multi-file projects who want to parallelize their workflow. If you regularly work on 3-5 tasks simultaneously (fix a bug, add a feature, write tests, refactor), Antigravity's multi-agent architecture is unmatched.

Visit Google Antigravity

Our Verdict

Llama 4 (Meta) and Google Antigravity are extremely close overall. Your choice comes down to specific needs -- Llama 4 (Meta) is better for developers and teams who need a permissively-licensed open-weights model with strong tooling, long context (scout), or multimodal (maverick), while Google Antigravity works best for developers working on large, multi-file projects who want to parallelize their workflow.