# Comparing AI Coding Tools for Chrome Extension Development

Testing Claude Code, Codex, and Antigravity to build a functional screenshot tool.

- **Source:** [XDA Developers](https://www.xda-developers.com)
- **Published:** 2026-11-08
- **Topic:** [technology](https://brifing.si/c/technology)
- **Original article:** <https://www.xda-developers.com/claude-code-codex-antigravity-build-same-chrome-extension-one-was-keeper/>
- **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/dca819c2-e7a8-4190-8f54-651ad8e3b77d

## Practical AI Coding Test

Yash Patel evaluated three AI coding tools—Claude Code, Codex, and Google Antigravity—by tasking them to build a complex Chrome extension named SnapNest. The project required offline functionality, screenshot beautification, and annotation tools. Unlike standard benchmarks, this test focused on real-world usability, interface design, and the overall quality of the generated code.

## Codex Performance Limitations

Using the Luna 6 model, Codex successfully implemented core features but struggled with user interface design. The extension suffered from tiny fonts and an unappealing color scheme. Furthermore, the side-panel layout made navigation confusing, and the annotation tools lacked necessary customization, rendering the numbered steps feature difficult to use in practical scenarios.

## Antigravity Layout Strengths

Powered by Gemini 3.8 Flash, Google Antigravity offered superior organization and a more intuitive editor layout compared to Codex. While it supported diverse export formats like PDF and WebP, the annotation workflow felt outdated. It relied on old-fashioned JavaScript prompt dialog boxes for text entry, which hindered the overall user experience significantly.

## Claude Code Superiority

Claude Code, utilizing the Claude Opus 5.5 model, emerged as the clear winner by delivering a polished and functional product. It featured well-thought-out navigation, effective annotation sizing, and a useful preset system for saving styles. The blur effect produced cleaner results, demonstrating a higher level of refinement than the competing AI tools.

## Development Speed Comparison

While development speed varied, it was not the primary differentiator in this assessment. Google Antigravity completed the task the fastest, whereas Claude Code required the most time. However, the marginal time difference was outweighed by the superior quality and usability of the final extension produced by the Claude Code platform.

## Usability and Design Nuances

The comparison highlighted that functional code does not always equate to a usable product. Codex and Antigravity both struggled with interface ergonomics, such as poor font scaling and clunky input methods. Claude Code succeeded by prioritizing intuitive control placement and providing better visual feedback for features like numbered annotations and background blurring.

## Export Functionality Analysis

Export capabilities varied across the three tools, impacting workflow efficiency. Antigravity provided a convenient consolidated menu for multiple formats, whereas Claude Code placed PDF exports in a separate location. Despite this minor organizational flaw, Claude Code remained the most reliable option for users requiring consistent, high-quality output for their screenshot editing tasks.

## Final Verdict on Tools

For developers seeking a balance between functionality and user experience, Claude Code is the recommended choice. While all three models successfully generated code, the practical refinements in Claude Code’s output significantly reduced post-development adjustments. Future projects will likely benefit from its superior handling of complex UI requirements and better annotation logic.

## Sources covering this story

- https://www.xda-developers.com/claude-code-codex-antigravity-build-same-chrome-extension-one-was-keeper/ — 

---

_Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._