8 ms·
I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude
by 827a 11mo ago
I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else.
I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI usage that is driving real, serious revenue: I have far better feelings about Anthropic going into 2026 than any other foundation model. Excited to put Opus 4.5 through its paces.
- emodendroket 11mo agoYeah I think Sonnet is still the best in my experience but the limits are so stingy I find it hard to recommend for personal use.
- visioninmyblood 11mo agoThe model is great it is able to code up some interesting visual tasks(I guess they have pretty strong tool calling capapbilities). Like orchestrate prompt -> image generate -> Segmentation -> 3D reconstruction. Checkout the results here https://chat.vlm.run/c/3fcd6b33-266f-4796-9d10-cfc152e945b7 https://chat.vlm.run/c/3fcd6b33-266f-4796-9d10-cfc152e945b7. Note the model was only used to orchestrate the pipeline, the tasks are done by other models in an agentic framework. They much have improved tool calling framework with all the MCP usage. Gemini 3 was able to orchestrate the same but Claude 4.5 is much faster
- Squarex 11mo agoI have heard that gemini 3 is not that great in cursor, but excellent in Antigravity. I don't have a time to personally verify all that though.
- incoming1211 11mo agoI think gemini 3 is hot garbage in everything. Its great on a greenfield trying to 1 shot something, if you're working on a long term project it just sucks.
- koakuma-chan 11mo agoNothing is great in Cursor.
- itsdrewmiller 11mo agoMy first couple of attempts at antigravity / Gemini were pretty bad - the model kept aborting and it was relatively helpless at tools compared to Claude (although I have a lot more experience tuning Claude to be fair). Seems like there are some good ideas in antigravity but it’s more like an alpha than a product.
- config_yml 11mo agoI‘ve had no success using Antigravity, which is a shame because the ideas are promising, but the execution so far is underwhelming. Haven‘t gotten past an initial plannin doc which is usually aborted due to model provider overload or rate limiting.
- sumedh 11mo agoGive it a try now, the launch day issues have gone. If anyone uses Windsurf, Anti Gravity is similar but the way they have implemented walkthrough and implementation plan looks good. It tells the user what the model is going to do and the user can put in line comments if they want to change something.
- bwat49 11mo agoit's better than at launch, but I still get random model response errors in anti-gravity. it has potential, but google really needs to work on the reliability. It's also bizarre how they force everyone onto the "free" rate limits, even those paying for google ai subscriptions.
- qingcharles 11mo agoI've had really good success with Antigrav. It's a little bit rough around the edges as it's a VS Code fork so things like C# Dev Kit won't install. I just get rate-limited constantly and have to wait for it to reset.
- vanviegen 11mo agoIt's just not great at coding, period. In Antigravity it takes insane amounts of time and tokens for tasks that copilot/sonnet would solve in 30 seconds. It generates tokens pretty rapidly, but most of them are useless social niceties it is uttering to itself in it's thinking process.
- rishabhaiover 11mo agoI suspect Cursor is not the right platform to write code on. IMO, humans are lazy and would never code on Cursor. They default to code generation via prompt which is sub-optimal.
- viraptor 11mo ago> They default to writing code via prompt generation which is sub-optimal. What do you mean?
- rishabhaiover 11mo agoIf you're given a finite context window, what's the most efficient token to present for a programming task? sloppy prompts or actual code (using it with autocomplete)
- viraptor 11mo agoI'm not sure you get how Cursor works. You add both instructions and code to your prompt. And it does provide its own autocomplete model as well. And... lots of people use that. (It's the largest platform today as far as I can tell)
- rishabhaiover 11mo agoI wish I didn't know how Cursor works. It's a great product for 90% of programmers out there no doubt.
- behnamoh 11mo agoi’ve tried Gemini in Google AI studio as well and was very disappointed by the superficial responses it provided. It seems like at the level of GPT-5-low or even lower. On the other hand, it’s a truly multi modal model whereas Claude remains to be specifically targeted at coding tasks, and therefore is only a text model.
- poszlem 11mo agoI’ve trashed Gemini non-stop (seriously, check my history on this site), but 3 Pro is the one that finally made me switch from OpenAI. It’s still hot garbage at coding next to Claude, but for general stuff, it’s legit fantastic.
- enraged_camel 11mo agoMy testing of Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor yielded mixed results. Sometimes it's phenomenal. At other times I either get the "provider overloaded" message (after like 5 mins or whatever the timeout is), or the model's internal monologue starts spilling out to the chat window, which becomes really messy and unreadable. It'll do things like: >> I'll execute. >> I'll execute. >> Wait, what if...? >> I'll execute. Suffice it to say I've switched back to Sonnet as my daily driver. Excited to give Opus a try.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- vunderba 11mo agoMy workflow was usually to use Gemini 2.5 Pro (now 3.0) for high-level architecture and design. Then I would take the finished "spec" and have Sonnet 4.5 perform the actual implementation.
- vessenes 11mo agoI like this plan, too - gemini's recent series have long seemed to have the best large context awareness vs competing frontier models - anecdotally, although much slower, I think gpt-5's architecture plans are slightly better.
- config_yml 11mo agoI use plan mode in claude code, then use gpt-5 in codex to review the plan and identify gaps and feed it back to claude. Results are amazing.
- easygenes 11mo agoYeah, I’ve used vatiations of the “get frontier models to cross-check and refine each others work” pattern for years now and it really is the path to the best outcomes in situations where you would otherwise hit a wall or miss important details.
- tiahura 11mo agoIt’s my approach in legal as well. Claude formulates its draft, then it prompts codex and gemini for theirs. Claude then makes recommendations for edits to its draft based on others. Gemini’s plan is almost always the worst, but even it frequently has at least one good point to make.
- danielbln 11mo agoIf you're not already doing that you can wire up a subagent that invokes codex in non interactive mode. Very handy, I run Gemini-cli and codex subagents in parallel to validate plans or implementations.
- chinathrow 11mo agoI gave Sonnet 4.5 a base64 encoded PHP serialize() json of an object dump and told him to extraxt the URL within. It gave me the Youtube-URL to Rick Astley.
- mikestorrent 11mo agoYou should probably tell AI to write you programs to do tasks that programs are better at than minds.
- arghwhat 11mo agoIf you're asking an LLM to compute something "off the top of its head", you're using it wrong. Ask it to write the code to perform the computation and it'll do better. Same with asking a person to solve something in their head vs. giving them an editor and a random python interpreter, or whatever it is normal people use to solve problems.
- serf 11mo agothe decent models will (mostly) decide when they need to write code for problem solving themselves. either way a reply with a bogus answer is the fault of the provider and model, not the question-asker -- if we all need to carry lexicons around to remember how to ask the black box a question we may as well just learn a programming language outright.
- chinathrow 11mo agoYes, Sonnet 4.5 tried like 10min until it had it. Way too long though.
- arghwhat 11mo agoI disagree, the answer you get is dictated by the question you ask. Ask stupid, get stupid. Present the problem better, get a better answer. These tools are trained to be highly compliant, so you get what you ask. Same happens with regular people - a smart person doing something stupid because they weren't overly critical and judgingof your request - and these tools have much more limited thinking/reasoning than a normal person would have, even if they seem to have a lot more "knowledge".
- rustystump 11mo agoGemini 3 was awful when i gave it a spin. It was worse than cursor’s composer model. Claude is still a go to but i have found that composer was “good enough” in practice.
- lvl155 11mo agoI really don’t understand the hype around Gemini. Opus/Sonnet/GPT are much better for agentic workflows. Seems people get hyped for the first few days. It also has a lot to do with Claude code and Codex.
- egeozcan 11mo agoI'm completely the opposite. I find Gemini (even 2.5 Pro) much, much better than anything else. But I hate agentic flows, I upload the full context to it in aistudio and then it shines - anything agentic cannot even come close.
- jiggawatts 11mo agoI recently wrote a small CLI tool for scanning through legacy codebases. For each file, it does a light parse step to find every external identifier (function call, etc...), reads those into the context, and then asks questions about the main file in question. It's amazing for trawling through hundreds of thousands of lines of code looking for a complex pattern, a bug, bad style, or whatever that regex could never hope to find. For example, I recently went through tens of megabytes(!) of stored procedures looking for transaction patterns that would be incompatible with read committed snapshot isolation. I got an astonishing report out of Gemini Pro 3, it was absolutely spot on. Most other models barfed on this request, they got confused or started complaining about future maintainability issues, stylistic problems or whatever, no matter how carefully I prompted them to focus on the task at hand. (Gemini Pro 2.5 did okay too, but it missed a few issues and had a lot of false positives.) Fixing RCSI incompatibilities in a large codebase used to be a Herculean task, effectively a no-go for most of my customers, now... eminently possible in a month or less, at the cost of maybe $1K in tokens.
- mrtesthah 11mo agoIf this is a common task for you, I'd suggest instead using an LLM to translate your search query into CodeQL[1], which is designed to scan for semantic patterns in a codebase. 1. https://codeql.github.com/ https://codeql.github.com/
- mritchie712 11mo ago> only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think part of it is this[0] and I expect it will become more of a problem. Claude models have built-in tools (e.g. `str_replace_editor`) which they've been trained to use. These tools don't exist in Cursor, but claude really wants to use them. 0 - https://x.com/thisritchie/status/1944038132665454841?s=20 https://x.com/thisritchie/status/1944038132665454841?s=20
- HugoDias 11mo agoTIL! I'll finally give Claude Code a try. I've been using Cursor since it launched and never tried anything else. The terminal UI didn't appeal to me, but knowing it has better performance, I'll check it out. Cursor has been a terrible experience lately, regardless of the model. Sometimes for the same task, I need to try with Sonnet 4.5, ChatGPT 5.1 Codex, Gemini Pro 3... and most times, none managed to do the work, and I end up doing it myself. At least I’m coding more again, lol
- firloop 11mo agoYou can install the Claude Code VS Code extension in Cursor and you get a similar AI side pane as the main Cursor composer.
- adastra22 11mo agoThat’s just Claude Code then. Why use cursor?
- dcre 11mo agoPeople like the tab completion model in Cursor.
- BoorishBears 11mo agoAnd they killed Supermaven. I've actually been working on porting the tab completion from Cursor to Zed, and eventually IntelliJ, for fun It shows exactly why their tab completion is so much better than everyone else's though: it's practically a state machine that's getting updated with diffs on every change and every file you're working with. (also a bit of a privacy nightmare if you care about that though)
- jjcm 11mo agoTangental observation - I've noticed Gemini 3 Pro's train of thought feels very unique. It has kind of an emotive personality to it, where it's surprised or excited by what it finds. It feels like a senior developer looking through legacy code and being like, "wtf is this??". I'm curious if this was a deliberate effort on their part, and if they found in testing it provided better output. It's still behind other models clearly, but nonetheless it's fascinating.
- Rastonbury 11mo agoYeah it's COT is interesting, it was supposedly RL on evaluations and gets paranoid that it's being evaluated and in a simulation. I asked it to critique output from another LLM and told it my colleague produced it, in COT it kept writing "colleague" in quotes as if it didn't believe me which I found amusing
- UltraSane 11mo agoI've had Gemini 3 Pro solve issues that Claude Code failed to solve after 10 tries. It even insulted some code that Sonnet 4.5 generated
- victor9000 11mo agoI'm also finding Gemini 3 (via Gemini CLI) to be far superior to Claude in both quality and availability. I was hitting Claude limits every single day, at that point it's literally useless.
- UltraSane 11mo agoHopefully once Anthropic has 1 million Google TPUs in use they will have sufficient capacity.
- screye 11mo agoGemini being terrible in Cursor is a well known problem. Unfortunately, for all its engineers, Google seems the most incompetent at product work.
- verdverm 11mo ago> played around with You'll never get an accurate comparison if you only play We know by now that it takes time to "get to know a model and it's quirks" So if you don't use a model and cannot get equivalent outputs to your daily driver, that's expected and uninteresting
- 827a 11mo agoI rotate models frequently enough that I doubt my personal access patterns are so model specific that they would unfairly advantage one model over another; so ultimately I think all you're saying is that Claude might be easier to use without model-specific skilling than other models. Which might be true. I certainly don't have as much time on Gemini 3 as I do on Claude 4.5, but I'd say my time with the Gemini family as a whole is comparable. Maybe further use of Gemini 3 will cause me to change my mind.
- verdverm 11mo agoyeah, this generally vibes with my experience, they aren't that different As I've gotten into the agentic stuff more lately, I suspect a sizeable part of the different user experiences comes down to the agents and tools. In this regard, Anthropic is probably in the lead. They certainly have become a thought leader in this area by sharing more of their experience and know hows in good posts and docs
- lxgr 11mo ago> I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. That's my experience too. It's weirdly bad at keeping track of its various output channels (internal scratchpad, user-visible "chain of thought", and code output), not only in Cursor but also on gemini.google.com.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- typpilol 11mo agoSame here. Gemini just rips shit out and doesn't understand the flow well between event based components either
- lossolo 11mo agoI've had problems solved incorrectly and edge cases missed by Sonnet and by other LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini) and the other way around too. Once they saw the other model's answer, they admitted their "critical mistake". It's all about how much of your prompt/problem/context falls outside the model's training distribution.
- consumer451 11mo agoI have a side-project prototype app that I tried to build on the Gemini 2.5 Pro API. I have not tried 3 yet, however the only improvements I would like to see is in Gemini's ability to: 1. Follow instructions consistently 2. API calls to not randomly result in "resource exhausted" Can anyone share their experience with either of these issues? I have built other projects accessing Azure GPT-4.1, Bedrock Sonnet 4, and even Perplexity, and those three were relatively rock solid compared to Gemini.
- rw2 11mo agoGemini 3 in antigravity is amazing
- arresin 11mo agoGemini pro 3 was a let down for me too
- herrvogel- 11mo agoWhat you describe could also be the difference in the hallucination rate [0]. Opus 4.5 has the lead here and Gemini 3 Pro performs here quite bad compared to the other benchmarks. [0] https://artificialanalysis.ai/?omniscience=omniscience-hallucination-rate#aa-omniscience-hallucination-rate https://artificialanalysis.ai/?omniscience=omniscience-hallu...
- arendtio 11mo agoI think the 'Agentic coding SWE-Bench Verified' [1] was actually the one benchmark where Google didn't even claim to beat Sonnet 4.5 ;-) [1] https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/pro/ https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/pro/