Which AI frontend dev tech reigns supreme? This post is here to answer that question. We’ve put together a comparison engine to help you evaluate AI models and tools side-by-side, produced an updated power rankings to show off the highest performing tech of December 2025, and conducted a thorough analysis across 50+ features to help spotlight the best models/tools for every purpose.
We’ve separately ranked AI models and AI-powered development tools. A quick refresher on how to distinguish these:
In this edition, we’re comparing 15 AI models and 12 development tools — our most comprehensive analysis yet, including new additions from Google: Gemini 3 pro and Antigravity.
Click the links below for LogRocket deep dives on select tools and models:
AI models:
AI development tools:
Let’s dive in!
The Replay is a weekly newsletter for dev and engineering leaders.
Delivered once a week, it's your curated guide to the most important conversations around frontend dev, emerging AI tools, and the state of modern software.
We ranked these tools using a holistic scoring approach. This was our rating scheme:
Here are the biggest changes in the rankings this month — and the factors that contributed to the shake-up:
For the tools ranking, we have prioritized comprehensive workflow integration and value proposition, with free offerings and unique capabilities taking precedence:
Our December 2025 power rankings highlight AI models that either recently hit the scene or released a major update in the past two months.
Previous ranking – New entry
Performance Summary: Gemini 3 Pro debuts with a commanding 76.2% SWE-bench Verified score, surpassing Claude Sonnet 4.5’s 70% to claim the coding performance crown. Its 1M context window, 64K output, and full video processing capability (unique among all models) make it unbeatable for multimodal applications. At $2-4/$12-18 pricing with a free tier, 24-language voice input, and enhanced tool use, it delivers frontier performance with comprehensive features.
Previous ranking – 1
Performance Summary: Claude Sonnet 4.5 drops to second but maintains exceptional value with 70% SWE-bench, best-in-class autonomous agent capabilities, and accessible $3/$15 pricing with a free tier. Its 200K context window and enhanced tool use keep it competitive.
Previous ranking – 2
Performance Summary: GPT-5 holds steady with 65% SWE-bench and a massive 400K context window at $1.25/$10 pricing. Four-level reasoning modes and 50-90% batch/caching discounts maintain its position as the best premium value.
Previous ranking – 3
Performance Summary: Opus delivers strong 67.6% SWE-bench performance but falls further with premium $15/$75 pricing and no free tier. While it remains capable for high-stakes applications, the emergence of Gemini 3 Pro with superior performance at a lower cost makes Opus increasingly difficult to justify for most workflows.
Previous ranking – 4
Performance Summary: Gemini 2.5 Pro drops one spot with its 53.60% SWE-bench score now overshadowed by its successor, Gemini 3 Pro. However, its unique full video processing (shared only with Gemini 3 Pro), 24-language voice input, 1M context window, and $1.25/$10 pricing keep it valuable for budget-conscious teams needing multimodal capabilities without cutting-edge coding performance.
Our December 2025 power rankings highlight AI development tools that either recently hit the scene or released a major update in the past two months.
Previous ranking – New entry
Performance Summary: Antigravity debuts at #1 with revolutionary features: completely free during preview, multi-agent orchestration (a unique capability no competitor offers), and integrated Chrome browser automation for autonomous testing. Supporting Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5/Opus 4.5, and GPT-OSS models, it delivers live preview, design-to-code, full IDE integration built on VS Code, and 3D graphics support.
Previous ranking – 1
Performance Summary: Windsurf drops to second but remains exceptional with its rare trifecta: Git integration, live preview, and collaborative editing. Wave 11’s voice interaction update keeps it competitive. Priced at Free-$60 with full IDE capabilities and Cascade AI agent, it’s still the best choice for teams prioritizing real-time collaboration, though AntiGravity’s free pricing and unique features claim the top spot.
Previous ranking – 4
Performance Summary: Cursor holds strong with comprehensive agent mode, voice input, and multi-file editing at Free-$200 pricing. Despite the highest cost, its quality tools and full IDE integration justify the premium for professional teams prioritizing maximum productivity, though it now trails Antigravity and Windsurf in workflow innovation.
Previous ranking – 2
Performance Summary: Gemini CLI maintains its value crown as completely free with open-source licensing, self-hosting, and voice input. While limited to CLI, it offers comprehensive quality features and browser compatibility checks. Antigravity’s arrival with similar free pricing but full IDE capabilities pushes it down, though it remains unbeatable for CLI-focused developers and students.
Previous ranking – 3
Performance Summary: Claude Code maintains excellence in code quality with comprehensive browser compatibility checks and performance optimization. Supporting all modern frameworks with strong testing and documentation generation, though its $20-$200 pricing with no free tier limits accessibility compared to Antigravity’s free offering.
Having a hard time picking one model or tool over another? Or maybe you have a few favorites, but your budget won’t allow you to pay for all of them.
We’ve built this comparison engine to help you make informed decisions.
Simply select between two and four AI technologies you’re considering, and the comparison engine instantly highlights their differences.
This targeted analysis helps you identify which tools best match your specific requirements and budget, ensuring you invest in the right combination for your workflow.
The comparison engine analyzes 25 leading AI models and tools across specific features, helping developers choose based on their exact requirements rather than subjective assessments. Most comparisons rate the AI capabilities in percentages and stars, but this one informs you of specific features each AI has over another.
Pro tip: No single tool dominates every category, so choosing based on feature fit is often the smartest approach for your workflow.
Looking at the updated ranking we just created, here’s how the tools stack up:
If you’re more of a visual learner, we’ve also put together tables that compare these tools across different criteria. Rather than overwhelming you with all 50+ features at once, we’ve grouped them into focused categories that matter most to frontend developers.
This section evaluates the core AI models that power development workflows. These are the underlying language models that provide the intelligence behind coding assistance, whether accessed through APIs, web interfaces, or integrated into various development tools. We compare their fundamental capabilities, performance benchmarks, and business considerations across 50+ features.
This table compares core coding features and framework compatibility across AI development tools amongst AI models.
Key takeaway – The SWE-bench leaderboard sees a new entry and leader with Gemini 3 Pro at 76.2%, surpassing Claude Sonnet 4.5’s 70% to claim the coding performance crown. Context windows remain competitive with Gemini 3 Pro’s 1M matching GPT -4.1/Gemini 2.5 Pro, though Llama 4 Scout’s 10M still dominates for large codebases.
| Feature | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude 4 Opus | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Kimi K2 | Grok 4 | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen 3 Coder | DeepSeek Coder | GPT-5 | Llama 4 Maverick | GLM-4.5 | Gemini 3 Pro 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real-time code completion | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Multi-file editing | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Design-to-code conversion | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| React component generation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Vue.js support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Angular support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| TypeScript support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Tailwind CSS integration | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Total Context Window | 200K | 200K | 200K | 200K | 1M | 1M | 128K | 256K | 2M | 256K-1M | 128K | 400K | 10M (Scout) / 256K (Maverick) | 128K | 1M |
| SWE-bench Score | 64.93% | 67.6% | 70% | ❌ | 39.80% | 53.60% | 43.80% | ❌ | ❌ | 55.40% | ❌ | 65% | ❌ | 54.20% | 74.2% |
| Semantic/deep search | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Autonomous agent mode | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Best-in-class) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Extended thinking/reasoning | ✅ (Hybrid) | ✅ (Hybrid) | ✅ (Hybrid) | ✅ (Hybrid) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Always-on) | ✅ (Unified) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Tool use capabilities | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Enhanced) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Native) | ✅ (RL-trained) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
This table compares code quality, accessibility, and performance optimization capabilities across tools amongst AI models.
Key takeaway –Quality feature parity is complete: all 15 AI models offer full support for WCAG compliance, performance optimization, browser compatibility, security detection, and test generation. Only Kimi K2 has “Limited” bundle size analysis:
| Feature | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude 4 Opus | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Kimi K2 | Grok 4 | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen 3 Coder | DeepSeek Coder | GPT-5 (medium reasoning) | Llama 4 Maverick | GLM-4.5 | Gemini 3 Pro 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responsive design generation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Accessibility (WCAG) compliance | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Performance optimization suggestions | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Bundle size analysis | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| SEO optimization | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Error debugging assistance | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Code refactoring | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Browser compatibility checks | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Advanced reasoning mode | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Always-on) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Code review capabilities | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Security/vulnerability detection | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Code quality scoring | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Architecture/design guidance | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Test generation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Code style adherence | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
This table compares support for contemporary web standards like PWAs, mobile-first design, and multimedia input amongst AI models.
Key takeaway – In December, Video processing remains exclusive to Google’s models: Gemini 3 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Pro are the only AI models offering full video capability, giving them unmatched advantage for multimedia applications:
| Feature | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude 4 Opus | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Kimi K2 | Grok 4 | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen 3 Coder | DeepSeek Coder | GPT-5 (medium reasoning) | Llama 4 Maverick | GLM-4.5 | Gemini 3 Pro 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile-first design | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Dark mode support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Internationalization (i18n) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (200 langs) | ✅(24+ languages, exceptional English-Chinese bilingual) | ✅ |
| PWA features | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Offline capabilities | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ |
| Voice/audio input | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (24 langs) | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | Limited | ✅ | Limited | Limited | ✅ |
| Image/design upload | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (up to 8-10) | ✅ | ✅ |
| Video processing | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | ✅ (Full) | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Basic | Limited | Limited | ✅ |
| Multimodal capabilities | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Vision) | ✅ | ✅ (Native) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | Limited | ✅ | ✅ (Native, Early Fusion) | ✅(Vision) | ✅ |
This table compares pricing models, enterprise features, privacy options, and deployment flexibility amongst AI models.
Key takeaway – GLM-4.5 joins the open-source value leaders with MIT licensing at $0.35/$0.39 per 1M tokens, competing directly with Qwen 3 Coder and DeepSeek Coder ($0.07-1.10). Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 3 Pro, and GPT-5 remain the best premium value at $1.25/$10. Claude 4 Opus stays the most expensive at $15/$75, without a free tier. GLM-4.5 offers self-hosting and custom model training, expanding enterprise deployment options:
| Feature | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude 4 Opus | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Kimi K2 | Grok 4 | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen 3 Coder | DeepSeek Coder | GPT-5 (medium reasoning) | Llama 4 Maverick | GLM-4.5 🆕 | Gemini 3 Pro 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free tier available | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Limited) | ✅ (Limited) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (Via Z.ai platform) | ✅ |
| Open source | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | Partial | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ (Apache 2.0) | ✅ (MIT License) | ❌ |
| Self-hosting option | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Enterprise features | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Privacy mode | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Custom model training | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | Limited | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited |
| API Cost (per 1M tokens) | $3/$15 | $15/$75 | $3/$15 | $15/$75 | $2/$8 | $1.25/$10 | $0.15/$2.50 | $3/$15 | $0.20-0.40/$0.50-1.00 | $0.07-1.10 | $0.07-1.10 | $1.25/$10 | $0.19-0.49 (estimated) | $0.35/$0.39 | $2/$12 (<200k tokens); $4/$18 (>200k tokens) |
| Max Context Output | 64K | 32K | 64K | 32K | 32.7K | 65K | 131.1K | 256K | 2M | 262K | 8.2K | 128K | 256K | 131K | 64K |
| Batch processing discount | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (50%) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Prompt caching discount | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (90%) | ✅ | ⚠️ (Not specified) | ✅ |
This section focuses on complete development environments and platforms that integrate AI capabilities into your workflow. These tools combine AI models with user interfaces, IDE integrations, and specialized features designed for specific development tasks. We evaluate their practical implementation, workflow integration, and user experience features.
This table compares core coding features and framework compatibility across development tools.
Key takeaway – Antigravity joins Gemini CLI and Claude Code in offering comprehensive WCAG compliance and browser compatibility checks. Bundle size analysis remains unavailable across all 12 tools:
| Feature | GitHub Copilot | Cursor | Windsurf | Vercel v0 | Bolt.new | JetBrains AI | Lovable AI | Gemini CLI | Claude Code | Codex | Kimi K2 CLI | AntiGravity 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real-time code completion | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Multi-file editing | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Design-to-code conversion | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
| React component generation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Vue.js support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Angular support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| TypeScript support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Tailwind CSS integration | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Native IDE integration | ✅ | ✅ (Full IDE) | ✅ (Full IDE) | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ (Full IDE) | ❌ | ✅ (CLI) | ✅ (CLI ) | ✅ (CLI ) | ✅ | ✅ (Full IDE) |
This table compares code quality, accessibility, and performance optimization capabilities across tools.
Key takeaway – Antigravity lacks voice/audio input, joining the majority of tools. Only Windsurf, Gemini CLI, and Cursor offer voice capabilities. Offline capabilities remain rare, only JetBrains AI and Lovable AI provide this:
| Feature | GitHub Copilot | Cursor IDE | Windsurf | Vercel v0 | Bolt.new | JetBrains AI | Lovable AI | Gemini CLI | Claude Code | Codex | Kimi K2 CLI | AntiGravity 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responsive design generation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Accessibility (WCAG) compliance | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ |
| Performance optimization suggestions | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Bundle size analysis | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| SEO optimization | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ |
| Error debugging assistance | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Code refactoring | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Browser compatibility checks | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | Limited | ✅ |
| Autonomous agent mode | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | Limited | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
This table compares support for contemporary web standards and multimedia input across development tools.
Key takeaway – Windsurf and Gemini CLI still stand out with voice/audio input, a rare feature among development tools. Offline capabilities remain largely unsupported—only JetBrains AI and Lovable AI provide this functionality:
| Feature | GitHub Copilot | Cursor IDE | Windsurf | Vercel v0 | Bolt.new | JetBrains AI | Lovable AI | Gemini CLI | Claude Code | Codex | Kimi K2 CLI | AntiGravity 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile-first design | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Dark mode support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ |
| Internationalization (i18n) | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ |
| PWA features | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | Limited | ✅ |
| Offline capabilities | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Voice/audio input | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Image/design upload | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Screenshot-to-code | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ❌ | ✅ |
| 3D graphics support | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | Limited | ✅ |
This table compares version control, collaboration, and development environment integration features.
Key takeaway –Antigravity joins Windsurf, Vercel v0, Bolt.new, and Lovable AI with live preview/hot reload capabilities. Collaborative editing remains limited to GitHub Copilot, Windsurf, and Lovable AI. Git integration is now standard across 11 of 12 tools (except Vercel v0):
| Feature | GitHub Copilot | Cursor IDE | Windsurf | Vercel v0 | Bolt.new | JetBrains AI | Lovable AI | Gemini CLI | Claude Code | Codex | Kimi K2 CLI | AntiGravity 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Git integration | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Live preview/hot reload | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Collaborative editing | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| API integration assistance | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Testing code generation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Documentation generation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Search | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Terminal integration | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Custom component libraries | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ✅ |
This table compares pricing models, enterprise features, privacy options, and deployment flexibility.
Key takeaway –Antigravity disrupts the market as completely free during preview with no paid tier yet, joining Gemini CLI as the only zero-cost options. Gemini CLI and Kimi K2 CLI remain the sole open-source tools with self-hosting capabilities:
| Feature | GitHub Copilot | Cursor IDE | Windsurf | Vercel v0 | Bolt.new | JetBrains AI | Lovable AI | Gemini CLI | Claude Code | Codex | Kimi K2 CLI | AntiGravity 🆕 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free tier available | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Open source | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | Partial | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Self-hosting option | ❌ | Privacy mode | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | Limited | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Enterprise features | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ (Coming soon) |
| Privacy mode | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Custom model training | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Monthly Pricing | Free-$39 | Free-$200 | Free-$60 | $5-$30 | Beta | Free-Custom | Free-$30 | Free | $20-$200 | $20-$200 | Free-$0.15 | Free |
| Enterprise Pricing | $39/user | $40/user | $60/user | Custom | Custom | Custom | Custom | Custom | Custom | Custom | Custom | TBD |
With AI development evolving at lightning speed, there’s no one-size-fits-all winner, and that’s exactly why tools like our comparison engine matter. By breaking down strengths, limitations, and pricing across the leading AI models and development platforms, you can make decisions based on what actually fits your workflow, not just hype or headline scores.
Whether you value raw technical performance, open-source flexibility, workflow integration, or budget-conscious scalability, the right pick will depend on your priorities. And as this month’s rankings show, leadership can shift quickly when new features roll out or pricing models change.
Test your top contenders in the comparison engine, match them to your needs, and keep an eye on next month’s update. We’ll be tracking the big moves so you can stay ahead.
Until then, happy building.

A hands-on comparison of five AI coding CLIs, tested by building the same React Todo app.

Discover what’s new in The Replay, LogRocket’s newsletter for dev and engineering leaders, in the December 17th issue.

Shruti Kapoor breaks down the React2Shell exploit and discusses lessons that dev teams can take away from one of the biggest security events of the year.

React, Angular, and Vue still lead frontend development, but 2025 performance is shaped by signals, compilers, and hydration. Here’s how they compare.
Would you be interested in joining LogRocket's developer community?
Join LogRocket’s Content Advisory Board. You’ll help inform the type of content we create and get access to exclusive meetups, social accreditation, and swag.
Sign up now
5 Replies to "AI dev tool power rankings & comparison [Dec. 2025]"
This sounds super helpful! I’m always looking for the best AI tools, so updated rankings and feature breakdowns are exactly what I need. Can’t wait to see which ones come out on top for September 2025!
Really enjoyed this breakdown! The way you separate *models* vs *tools* makes the comparisons much clearer, and your 48+-feature evaluation gives real depth rather than just surface-level ranking.
I especially appreciate how **Claude Sonnet 4.5** is spotlighted for high performance *and* value, and how **Windsurf** is praised for its workflow integration. The approach of combining technical metrics, usability, value, and deployment criteria seems like a fair, holistic way to compare.
One suggestion: it might help to include **real-world developer stories or case studies** showing how these tools perform under pressure (e.g. large codebases, team workflows) to complement the metrics. But overall: great job — I’ll definitely be revisiting this when choosing tools for my next project.
That’s really cool!
Awesome deep dive — the side-by-side comparisons and updated rankings really help cut through the hype. I especially liked how you balance metrics with practical workflow considerations. Looking forward to next month’s update!
great