Summarizer

Too late, personally after how bad 4.6 was the past week I was pushed to codex, which seems to mostly work at the same level from day to day. Just last night I was trying to get 4.6 to lookup how to do some simple tensor parallel work, and the agent used 0 web fetches and just hallucinated 17K very wrong tokens. Then the main agent decided to pretend to implement tp, and just copied the entire model to each node...

Same. I stopped my Pro subscription yesterday after entering the week with 70% of my tokens used by Monday morning (on light, small weekend projects, things I had worked on in the past and barely noticed a dent in usage.) Support was... unhelpful. It's been funny watching my own attitude to Anthropic change, from being an enthusiastic Claude user to pure frustration. But even that wasn't the trigger to leave, it was the attitude Support showed. I figure, if you mess up as badly as Anthropic has, you should at least show some effort towards your customers. Instead I just got a mass of standardised replies, even after the thread replied I'd be escalated to a human. Nothing can sour you on a company more. I'm forgiving to bugs, we've all been there, but really annoyed by indifference and unhelpful form replies with corporate uselessness. So if 4.7 is here? I'd prefer they forget models and revert the harness to its January state. Even then, I've already moved to Codex as of a few days ago, and I won't be maintaining two subscriptions, it's a move. It has its own issues, it's clear, but I'm getting work done. That's more than I can say for Claude.

I used the $60/mo subscription and I bet most developers get access to AI agents via their company, and there was no difference. They should have reduced the rate limits, or offered a new model, anything except silently reduce the quality of their flagship product to reduce cost. The cost of switching is too low for them to be able to get away with the standard enshittification playbook. It takes all of 5 minutes to get a Codex subscription and it works almost exactly the same, down to using the same commands for most actions.

Funny because many people here were so confident that OpenAI is going to collapse because of how much compute they pre-ordered. But now it seems like it's a major strategic advantage. They're 2x'ing usage limits on Codex plans to steal CC customers and it seems to be working. I'm seeing a lot of goodwill for Codex and a ton of bad PR for CC. It seems like 90% of Claude's recent problems are strictly lack of compute related.

Different plan. The old 2x has been discontinued, and the bonus is now (temporarily) available for the new $100 plan users in an effort, presumably, to entice them away from Anthropic.

> It seems like 90% of Claude's recent problems are strictly lack of compute related. Downtime is annoying, but the problem is that over the past 2-3 weeks Claude has been outrageously stupid when it does work. I have always been skeptical of everything produced - but now I have no faith whatsoever in anything that it produces. I'm not even sure if I will experiment with 4.7, unless there are glowing reviews. Codex has had none of these problems. I still don't trust anything it produces, but it's not like everything it produces is completely and utterly useless.

The market here is extraordinarily vibes-based and burning billions of dollars for a ephemeral PR boost, which might only last another couple weeks until people find a reason to hate Codex, does not reflect well on OAI's long term viability.

I have both Claude and OpenAI, side by side. I would say sonnet 46 still beats gpt 54 for coding (at least in my use case) But after about 45 minutes I'm out of my window, so I use openai for the next 4 hours and I can't even reach my limit.

Most of the compute OpenAI "preordered" is vapour. And it has nothing to do with why people thought the company -- which is still in extremely rocky rapids -- was headed to bankruptcy. Anthropic has been very disciplined and focused (overwhelmingly on coding, fwiw), while OpenAI has been bleeding money trying to be the everything AI company with no real specialty as everyone else beat them in random domains. If I had to qualify OpenAI's primary focus, it has been glazing users and making a generation of malignant narcissists. But yes, Anthropic has been growing by leaps and bounds and has capacity issues. That's a very healthy position to be in, despite the fact that it yields the inevitable foot-stomping "I'm moving to competitor!" posts constantly.

How is droves of your customers leaving, whether they're foot stomping or not, healthy?

Codex really has its place in my bag. I mainly use it, rarely Claude. Codex just gets it done. Very self-correcting by design while Claude has no real base line quality for me. Claude was awesome in December, but Codex is like a corporate company to me. Maybe it looks uncool, but can execute very well. Also Web Design looks really smooth with Codex. OpenAI really impressed me and continues to impress me with Codex. OpenAI made no fuzz about it, instead let results speak. It is as if Codex has no marketing department, just its product quality - kind of like Google in its early days with every product.

I switched to Codex and found it extremely inferior for my use case. It is much faster, but faster worse code is a step in the wrong direction. You're just rapidly accumulating bugs and tech debt, rather than more slowly moving in the correct direction. I'm a big fan of Gemini in general, but at least in my experience Gemini Cli is VERY FAR behind either Codex or CC. It's both slower than CC, MUCH slower than Codex, and the output quality considerably worse than CC (probably worse than Codex and orders of magnitude slower). In my experience, Codex is extraordinarily sycophantic in coding, which is a trait that could t be more harmful. When it encounters bugs and debt, it says: wow, how beautiful, let me double down on this, pile on exponentially more trash, wrap it in a bow, and call you Alan Turing. It also does not follow directions. When you tell it how to do something, it will say, nah, I have a better faster way, I'll just ignore the user and do my thing instead. CC will stop and ask for feedback much more often. YMMV.

What is your use case? I read comments like this and it's totally opposite of my experience, I have both CC Opus 4.6 and Codex 5.4 and Codex is much more thorough and checks before it starts making changes maybe even to a fault but I accept it because getting Opus to redo work because it messes up and jumps in the first attempt is a massive waste of time, all tasks and spec are atomic and granularly spec'd, I'd say 30% of the time I regret when I decide to use Opus for 'simpler' and work

>> I switched to Codex and found it extremely inferior for my use case. Yeah, 100% the case for me. I sometimes use it to do adversarial reviews on code that Opus wrote but the stuff it comes back with is total garbage more often than not. It just fabricates reasons as to why the code it's reviewing needs improvement.

neah, I believe most people here, which immediately brag about codex, are openai employees doing part of their job. otherwise I couldn't possibly phantom why would anyone use codex. In my company 80% is claude and 15% gemini. you can barely see openai on the graph. and we have >5k programmers using ai every day.

I’m thinking the same thing, Codex literally ruined the codebases that I experimented with it on.

Currently GPT just works much better, and so does Gemini but it's more expensive right now. Going through Opencode stats, their claim is that Gemini is the current best model followed by GPT 5.4 on their benchmarks, but the difference is slim. My personal experience is best with GPT but it could be the specific kind of work I use it for which is heavy on maths and cpp (and some LISP).

You can believe whatever you want. I found claude unusable due to limits. Codex works very well for my use cases.

Codex doesn't read Claude.md like Claude does. It's not a "one line" change to switch.

I have a CLAUDE.md symlinked to AGENTS.md

ln -s CLAUDE.md AGENTS.md There's your one line change.

That doesn't handle Claude.md in subdirectories. It does handle Claude.md and other various settings in .claude.

You mean Anthropic are the only ones refusing the de-facto standard despite a long-standing issue: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/6235 And as others have said, it's a one-line fix. "Skills" etc. are another `ln -s`

I don't have much quality drop from 4.6. But I also notice that I use codex more often these days than claude code

I generally think codex is doing well until I come in with my Opus sweep to clean it up. Claude just codes closer to the way my brain works. codex is great at finding numerical stability issues though and increasingly I like that it waits for an explicit push to start working. But talking to Claude Code the way I learned to talk to codex seems to work also so I think a lot of it is just learning curve (for me).

That's wild that you think 4.6 is bad..... Each model has its strengths and weaknesses I find that Codex is good for architectural design and Claude Is actually better the engineering and building

I enjoy switching back and forth and having multi-agent reviews. I'm enjoying Codex also but having options is the real win.

Same for me. I cancelled my subscription and will be moving to Codex for the time being. Tokens are way too opaque and Claude was way smarter for my work a couple of months ago.

I've noticed the same over the last two weeks. Some days Claude will just entirely lose its marbles. I pay for Claude and Codex so I just end up needing to use codex those days and the difference is night and day.

Same! I thought people were exaggerating how bad Claude has gotten until it deleted several files by accident yesterday Codex isn’t as pretty in output but gets the job done much more consistently

codex low-key seems to be better than claude. and i say this as an 18-hour-a-day user of both (mostly claude)

Meh. At $work we were on CC for one month, then switched to Codex for one month, and now will be on CC again to test. We haven’t seen any obvious difference between CC and Codex; both are sometimes very good and sometimes very stupid. You have to test for a long time, not just test one day and call it a benchmark just because you have a single example.

Anecdotally, codex has been burning through way more tokens for me lately. Claude seems to just sit and spin for a long time doing nothing, but at least token use is moderate. All options are starting to suck more and more

How do you get codex to generate any code? I describe the problem and codex runs in circles basically: codex> I see the problem clearly. Let me create a plan so that I can implement it. The plan is X, Y, Z. Do you want me to implement this? me> Yes please, looks good. Go ahead! codex> Okay. Thank you for confirming. So I am going to implement X, Y, Z now. Shall I proceeed? me> Yes, proceed. codex> Okay. Implementing. ...codex is working... you see the internal monologue running in circles codex> Here is what I am going to implement: X, Y, Z me> Yes, you said that already. Go ahead! codex> Working on it. ...codex in doing something... codex> After examining the problem more, indeed, the steps should be X, Y, Z. Do you want me to implement them? etc. Very much every sessions ends up being like this. I was unable to get any useful code apart from boilerplate JS from it since 5.4 So instead I just use ChatGPT to create a plan and then ask Opus to code, but it's a hit and miss. Almost every time the prompt seems to be routed to cheaper model that is very dumb (but says Opus 4.6 when asked). I have to start new session many times until I get a good model.

I try codex, but i hate 5.4's personality as a partner. It's a demon debugger though. but working closely with it, it's so smug and annoying.

Yep, I'll wait for the GPT answer to this. If we're lucky OpenAI will release a new GPT 5.5 or whatever model in the next few days, just like the last round. I have been getting better results out of codex on and off for months. It's more "careful" and systematic in its thinking. It makes less "excuses" and leaves less race conditions and slop around. And the actual codex CLI tool is better written, less buggy and faster. And I can use the membership in things like opencode etc without drama. For March I decided to give Claude Code / Opus a chance again. But there's just too much variance there. And then they started to play games with limits, and then OpenAI rolled out a $100 plan to compete with Anthropic's. I'm glad to see the competition but I think Anthropic has pissed in the well too much. I do think they sent me something about a free month and maybe I will use that to try this model out though.

I’ve been on the Claude Code train for a while but decided to try Codex last week after they announced the $100 USD Pro plan. I’ve been pretty happy with it! One thing I immediately like more than Claude is that Codex seems much more transparent about what it’s thinking and what it wants to do next. I find it much easier to interrupt or jump in the middle if things are going to wrong direction. Claude Code has been slowly turning into this mysterious black box, wiping out terminal context any time it compacts a conversation (which I think is their hacky way of dealing with terminal flickering issues — which is still happening, 14 months later), going out of the way to hide thought output, and then of course the whole performance issues thing. Excited to try 4.7 out, but man, Codex (as a harness at least) is a stark contrast to Claude Code.

there is an official codex plugin for claude. I just have them do adversarial reviews/implementations. etc with each other. adds a bit of time to the workflow but once you have the permissions sorted it'll just engage codex when necessary

Do this -- take your coworker's PRs that they've clearly written in Claude Code, and have Codex/GPT 5.4 review them. Or have Codex review your own Claude Code work. It then becomes clear just how "sloppy" CC is. I wouldn't mind having Opus around in my back pocket to yeet out whole net new greenfield features. But I can't trust it to produce well-engineered things to my standards. Not that anybody should trust an LLM to that level, but there's matters of degree here.

I've been using Claude and Codex in tandem ($100 CC, $20 Codex), and have made heavy use of claude-co-commands [0] to make them talk. Outside of the last 1-2 weeks (which we now have confirmation YET AGAIN that Claude shits the fucking bed in the run-up to a new model release), I usually will put Claude on max + /plan to gin up a fever dream to implement. When the plan is presented, I tell it to /co-validate with Codex, which tends to fill in many implementation gaps. Claude then codes the amended plan and commits, then I have a Codex skill that reviews the commit for gaps, missed edge cases, incorrect implementation, missed optimizations, etc, and fix them. This had been working quite well up until the beginning of the month, Claude more or less got CTE, and after a week of that I swapped to $100 Codex, $20 CC plans. Now I'm using co-validation a lot less and just driving primarily via Codex. When Claude works, it provides some good collaborative insights and counter-points, but Codex at the very least is consistently predictable (for text-oriented, data-oriented stuff -- I don't use either for designing or implementing frontend / UI / etc). As always, YMMV! [0] https://github.com/SnakeO/claude-co-commands

This more or less mimics a flow that I had fairly good results from -- but I'm unwilling to pay for both right now unless I had a client or employer willing to foot the bill. Claude Code as "author" and a $20 Codex as reviewer/planner/tester has worked for me to squeeze better value out of the CC plan. But with the new $100 codex plan, and with the way Anthropic seemed to nerf their own $100 plan, I'm not doing this anymore.

I have, and in fact models will find things to criticize in their own work, too, so it's good to iterate. But I've had the best results with GPT 5.4

It cuts both ways. What I usually do these days is to let codex write code, then use claude code /simplify, have both codex and claude code review the PR, then finally manually review and fixup things myself. It's still ~2x faster than doing everything by myself.

They don't have enough compute for all their customers. OpenAI bet on more compute early on which prompted people to say they're going to go bankrupt and collapse. But now it seems like it's a major strategic advantage. They're 2x'ing usage limits on Codex plans to steal CC customers and it seems to be working. It seems like 90% of Claude's recent problems are strictly lack of compute related.

> It looks like full time work would require the 20x plan. Full time work where you have the LLM do all the code has always required the larger plans. The $20/month plans are for occasional use as an assistant. If you want to do all of your work through the LLM you have to pay for the higher tiers. The Codex $20/month plan has higher limits, but in my experience the lower quality output leaves me rewriting more of it anyway so it's not a net win.

noticing sharp uptick in "i switched to codex" replies lately. a "codex for everything" post flocking the front page on the day of the opus 4.7 release me and coworker just gave codex a 3 day pilot and it was not even close to the accuracy and ability to complete & problem solve through what we've been using claude for. are we being spammed? great. annoying. i clicked into this to read the differences and initial experiences about claude 4.7. anyone who is writing "im using codex now" clearly isn't here to share their experiences with opus 4.7. if codex is good, then the merits will organically speak for themselves. as of 2026-04-16 codex still is not the tool that is replacing our claude-toolbelt. i have no dog in this fight and am happy to pivot whenever a new darkhorse rises up, but codex in my scope of work isn't that darkhorse & every single "codex just gets it done" post needs to be taken with a massive brick of salt at this point. you codex guys did that to yourselves and might preemptively shoot yourselves in the foot here if you can't figure out a way to actually put codex through the ringer and talk about it in its own dedicated thread, these types of posts are not it.

No, I assure you you are not being spammed because legitimately many people prefer codex over claude right now. I am one of those people. And if you go on tech social media spaces you'll see many prominent well known devs in open source say the same. And of course others praise claude as well. At my job we have enterprise access to both and I used claude for months before I got access to codex. Around the time gpt-5.3-codex came out and they improved its speed I was split around 50/50. Now I spend almost 100% of my time using Codex with GPT 5.4. I still compare outputs with claude and codex relatively frequently and personally I find I always have better results with codex. But if you prefer claude thats totally acceptable.

i think you are being needlessly paranoid here openai doest offer affiliate marketing links the reason you see lot of users switching to codex is for the dismal weekly usage you get from claude what users care about is actual weekly usage , they dont care a model is a few points smarter , let us use the damn thing for actual work only codex pro really offers that

we arent bots because we disagree with you. I switch between codex and opus, they have their differing strengths. As many people have mentioned, opus in the past few weeks has had less than stellar results. Generally I find opus would rather stub something and do it the faster way than to do a more complete job, although its much better at front end. I've had times where I've thrown the same problem at opus 4/5 times without success and codex gets it first shot. Just my experience.

Will they actually give you enough usage ? Biggest complaint is that codex offers way more weekly usage. Also this means GPT 5.5 release is imminent (I suspect thats what Elephant is on OR)

coming more in line with codex - claude previously would often ignore explicit instructions that codex would follow. interested to see how this feels in practice I think this line around "context tuning" is super interesting - I see a future where, for every model release, devs go and update their CLAUDE.md / skills to adapt to new model behavior.

I am waiting for the 2x usage window to close to try it out today. If they are charging 2x usage during the most important part of the day, doesn't this give OpenAI a slight advantage as people might naturally use Codex during this period?

So many messages about how Codex is better then Claude from one day to the other, while my experience is exactly the same. Is OpenAI botting the thread? I can't believe this is genuine content.

not a bot, voiced frustration is real here. I kind of depend on good LLMs now and wouldn't even mind if they had frozen the LLMs capabilities around dec 2025 forver and would hppily continue to pay, even more. but when suddenly the very same workload that was fine for months isn't possible anymore with the very same LLM out of nowhere and gets increasingly worse, its a huge disappointment. and having codex in parallel as a backup since ever I started also using it again with gpt 5.4 and it just rips without the diva sensitivity or overfitting into the latest prompt opus/sonnet is doing. GPT just does the job, maybe thinks a bit long, but even over several rounds of chat compression in the same chat for days stays well within the initial set of instructions and guardrails I spelled out, without me having to remind every time. just works, quietly, and gets there. Opus doesn't even get there anymore without nearly spelling out by hand manual steps or what not to do.

It's a combination of factors. There was rate-limiting implemented by Anthropic, where the 5hr usage limit would be burned through faster at peak hours, I was personally bitten by this multiple times before one guy from Anthropic announced it publicly via twitter, terrible communication. It wasn't small either, ~15 minutes of work ended up burning the entire 5hr limit. That annoyed me enough to switched to Codex for the month at that point. Now people are saying the model response quality went down, I can't vouch for that since I wasn't using Claude Code, but I don't think this many people saying the same thing is total noise though.

I'm an Opus stan but I'll also admit that 5.4 has gotten a lot better, especially at finding and fixing bugs. Codex doesn't seem to do as good a job at one shotting tasks from scratch. I suppose if you are okay with a mediocre initial output that you spend more time getting into shape, Codex is comparable. I haven't exhaustively compared though.

Yes, GPT 5.4 is better at finding bugs in traditional code. This has been easy to verify since its release. Its also worse at everything else, in particular using anything recent, or not overengineering. Opus is much better at picking the right tool for the job in any non-debugging situation, which is what matters most as it has long-term consequences. It also isn't stuck in early 2024. "Docs MCPs" don't make up for knowledge in weights.

I'm wondering this too. That said, I know a few people in real life who prefer Codex. More who prefer Claude though.

In the gemini subreddit there is a persistent problem with bots posting "Gemini sucks, I switched to Claude" and then bots replying they did the same. Old accounts with no posts for a few years, then suddenly really interested in talking up Claude, and their lackeys right behind to comment. Not even necessarily calling out Anthropic, many fan boys view these AI wars as existential.

I've had good experiences with codex, as have many others. Its genuine content since everyones codebases and needs are different.

You're better off subscribing to Codex for April and May of 2026.

Sorry, no, not a bot. I get way better results out of Codex. It's just ultimately subjective, and, it's like, your opinion, man. Calling people bots who disagree is probably not a good look. I don't like OpenAI the company, but their model and coding tool is pretty damn good. And I was an early Claude Code booster and go back and forth constantly to try both.

It feels like OAI stans have been botting HN for a few weeks now.

Or, y'know, people can genuinely disagree

4.7 hasn't been out for an hour yet and we already have people shilling for Codex in the comments. I don't know how anyone could form a genuine disagreement in this period of time.

The same people that hyped up Claude will also hype up better alternatives or speak out against it, seems more like you're being disingenuous here.

Is Codex the new goto? Opus stopped being useful about 45-60 days ago.

Codex or the Chinese models

I wish someone would elaborate on what they were doing and observed since Jan on opus 4.6. I’ve been using it with 1m context on max thinking since it was released - as a software engineer to write most of my code, code reviews + research and explain unfamiliar code - and haven’t notice a degradation. I’ve seen this mentioned a lot though. I have seen that codex -latest highest effort - will find some important edge cases that opus 4.6 overlooked when I ask both of them to review my PRs.

Incredible - in one fell swoop killing my entire use case for Claude. I have about 15 submissions that I now need to work with Codex on cause this "smarter" model refuses to read program guidelines and take them seriously.

Uh oh: > The new /ultrareview slash command produces a dedicated review session that reads through changes and flags bugs and design issues that a careful reviewer would catch. We’re giving Pro and Max Claude Code users three free ultrareviews to try it out. More monetization a tier above max subscriptions. I just pointed openclaw at codex after a daily opus bill of $250. As Anthropic keeps pushing the pricing envelope wider it makes room for differentiation, which is good. But I wish oAI would get a capable agentic model out the door that pushes back on pricing. Ps I know that Anthropic underbought compute and so we are facing at least a year of this differentiated pricing from them, but still..ouch

This is the first new model from Anthropic in a while that I'm not super enthused about. Not because of the model, I literally haven't opened the page about it, I can already guess what it says ("Bigger, better, faster, stronger"), but because of the company. I have enjoyed using Claude Code quite a bit in the past but that has been waning as of late and the constant reports of nerfed models coupled with Anthropic not being forthcoming about what usage is allowed on subscriptions [0] really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'll probably give them another month but I'm going to start looking into alternatives, even PayG alternatives. [0] Please don't @ me, I've read every comment about how it _is clear_ as a response to other similar comments I've made. Every. Single. One. of those comments is wrong or completely misses the point. To head those off let me be clear: Anthropic does not at all make clear what types of `claude -p` or AgentSDK usage is allowed to be used with your subscription. That's all I care about. What am I allowed to use on my subscription. The docs are confusing, their public-facing people give contradictory information, and people commenting state, with complete confidence, completely wrong things. I greatly dislike the Chilling Effect I feel when using something I'm paying quite a bit (for me) of money for. I don't like the constant state of unease and being unsure if something might be crossing the line. There are ideas/side-projects I'm interested in pursuing but don't because I don't want my account banned for crossing a line I didn't know existed. Especially since there appears to be zero recourse if that happens. I want to be crystal clear: I am not saying the subscription should be a free-for-all, "do whatever you want", I want clear lines drawn. I increasingly feeling like I'm not going to get this and so while historically I've prefered Claude over ChatGPT, I'm considering going to Codex (or more likely, OpenCode) due to fewer restrictions and clearer rules on what's is and is not allowed. I'd also be ok with kind of warning so that it's not all or nothing. I greatly appreciate what Anthropic did (finally) w.r.t. OpenClaw (which I don't use) and the balance they struck there. I just wish they'd take that further.

Regardless of the model quality improvement, the corporate damage was done by not only ignoring the Opus quality degradation but gaslighting users into thinking they aren’t using it right. I switched to Codex 5.4 xhigh fast and found it to be as good as the old Claude. So I’ll keep using that as my daily driver and only assess 4.7 on my personal projects when I have time.

Is that time to turning back from Codex to Claude Code?

Codex release coming today: https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2044803491332526287

just started using codex. claude is just marketing machine and benchmaxxing and only if you pay gazillion and show your ID you can use their dangerous model.

Gemini and Codex already scored higher on benchmarks than Opus 4.6 and they recently added a $100 tier with limited 2x limits, that's their answer and it seems people have caught on.

even sonnet right now has degraded for me to the point of like ChatGPT 3.5 back then. took ~5 hours on getting a playwright e2e test fixed that waited on a wrong css selector. literlly, dumb as fuck. and it had been better than opus for the last week or so still... did roughly comparable work for the last 2 weeks and it all went increasingly worse - taking more and more thinking tokens circling around nonsense and just not doing 1 line changes that a junior dev would see on the spot. Too used to vibing now to do it by hand (yeah i know) so I kept watching and meanwhile discovered that codex just fleshed out a nontrivial app with correct financial data flows in the same time without any fuzz. I really don't get why antrhopic is dropping their edge so hard now recently, in my head they might aim for increasing hype leading to the IPO, not disappointment crashes from their power user base.