Claude Code vs Cursor vs Codex: Is Gemini CLI Still an Option in 2026?

Short answer: for most people, no. Google stopped serving Gemini CLI to free users and to its own AI Pro and Ultra subscribers on June 18, 2026. If you ran it on a personal account, it is gone.

That changes the Claude Code vs Cursor vs Codex question. A year ago this was a four-way race with a generous free option in it. Today it is three paid tools, plus a Google replacement that is still finding its feet.

And this is not a niche developer argument any more. JetBrains surveyed more than 15,000 professional developers between May and July 2026. 90% use an AI coding agent at work every week. 68% use one every day. If you pay for software to be built, this is already in your cost base.

So here is where each tool stands, what it costs, and how to decide.

Is Gemini CLI still an option in 2026?

Only if you are a paying Google Cloud customer.

Google announced the change on May 19, 2026. The cutoff came a month later. Consumer accounts were moved to a new tool called Antigravity CLI.

The Gemini CLI code is still public under an open source licence. But without a qualifying account, it has nothing to talk to.

If you do qualify through Gemini Code Assist, expect about $19 per user a month for Standard and $45 for Enterprise on annual billing.

What is Antigravity CLI?

It is Google's replacement. Rebuilt in Go, designed to run several agents in the background, and it carries over most Gemini CLI features as plugins.

The catch is limits. The old Gemini CLI free tier allowed around 1,000 requests a day. Google has not published firm quota numbers for Antigravity CLI, and early users report running out fast.

Adoption is small so far: 6% in the JetBrains survey. The one exception is India, where it sits at 15%.

Our read: watch it. Do not build a team workflow on it yet.

Claude Code vs Cursor vs Codex: how they differ

All three write and change code from plain instructions. They go about it in three different ways.

Claude Code

Made by Anthropic. It runs in the terminal. A developer describes the task, and it reads the project, edits files across it, and runs the tests. It is strongest on long changes that touch many parts of a large codebase.

It is also the most used. 39% of developers in the JetBrains survey use it at work, and 47% in the US. That is nearly double GitHub Copilot at 21%.

Plans run $20, $100 and $200 a month. Limits work on a rolling five-hour window plus a weekly cap, and Anthropic does not publish exact numbers. The trade-off: it lives in the terminal, which is less friendly for developers who prefer a visual editor.

Cursor

Cursor is a code editor with AI built in. It looks and feels like VS Code, which most developers already use. That makes it the easiest of the three to adopt.

Plans run $20, $60 and $200 a month, with Teams at $40 per user. Each plan includes a credit pool equal to its price. Auto mode is unlimited. Picking a top model by hand spends credits at that model's full rate.

Two things to know. Adoption slipped from 18% in January to 12% by mid-2026. And the owner changed: SpaceX closed its $60 billion acquisition of Cursor on August 14, 2026. The product works the same today. But it is a reminder that these vendors move fast.

Codex

Made by OpenAI, and bundled into paid ChatGPT plans. There is no separate bill.

Codex also works differently. You hand it a task, it works on its own in a cloud sandbox, and it comes back with a finished change for a human to review. You are not sitting beside it. You are dispatching it. The trade-off: you have less control while it works.

It is the fastest climber. Adoption went from 3% in January 2026 to 16% by mid-year. OpenAI added its newer GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna models to Codex on September 22, 2026.

Adoption figures are from the JetBrains survey, May to July 2026.

Why the ranking moved so fast

Three numbers tell the story. GitHub Copilot fell from 29% to 21% in a year. Cursor fell from 18% to 12% in six months. Codex went from 3% to 16% in the same six months.

The pattern is clear. Developers are moving from tools that suggest code to tools that finish tasks. Autocomplete was the 2024 product. Agents that take a job and return a result are the 2026 product. Every tool on this list is racing in that direction, Cursor included.

What it costs a team

The sticker prices have converged. $20 to start. $100 or $200 for heavy use. The real difference is what happens when you hit the limit.

• Claude Code and Codex cap by time window. You hit the wall, then you wait or upgrade. The bill stays predictable.
• Cursor runs on credits. You can keep going and pay more. Flexible, but harder to budget.

Picture a six-developer product team in Andheri. On $20 plans, that is $120 a month. Heavy users will hit limits within the working day, so the realistic number is the $100 tier: $600 a month.

That is still small next to one developer's salary. The subscription is rarely the real cost. Unreviewed code is.

Which one wins?

There is no single winner. But there is a clear pick for each situation.

A few more points before you decide.

Most working developers use two tools, not one. Usually an editor like Cursor for small edits, and a terminal agent like Claude Code or Codex for the big jobs.

Do not pick by benchmark. Scores change every few weeks as new models ship. Workflow fit lasts longer than a leaderboard position.

And keep your setup portable. Gemini CLI had the most generous free tier of the four, and it was pulled with one month of notice.

What this means if you are not a developer

You do not need to choose the tool. You need to ask the people building your software three questions.

1. Who reviews AI-written code before it goes live? An agent can produce a week of code in an afternoon. Someone still has to read it.
2. What are the data terms on the plan you use? Business plans and personal plans treat your code differently. Know which one your project is on.
3. If this tool changes price or shuts down, how long would it take to switch? The right answer is days, not months.

This is what we tell clients at Nipralo. The tool your developers use matters less than the process around it. Clear specs, code review, tests, and a codebase you own. That is how we run custom software and AI automation projects, and you can see the results in our web and mobile app work and case studies.

How to choose in one week

1. Pick one real task from your backlog. Not a toy example.
2. Run it on two tools, both on $20 plans.
3. Measure time to a reviewed, working result. Not time to a first draft.
4. Note every limit you hit and what it would cost to remove it.
5. Pick one as the default. Review the choice again in three months.

Bottom line: Claude Code vs Cursor vs Codex

Gemini CLI is no longer a real option unless you are on Google Cloud. For everyone else, the choice is Claude Code vs Cursor vs Codex, and the honest answer is that the best one depends on how your team already works.

Large codebase and long changes: Claude Code. Editor-first team: Cursor. Already paying for ChatGPT and happy to delegate: Codex.

If you are not sure what your project needs, or you want software built by a team that already works this way, book a free 20-min call. Tell us what you are building. We will tell you what it should take.