upvote
Quick impressions: A week of using Codex more than Claude

(allaboutcoding.ghinda.com)

while everyone is somehow still stuck on and fascinated by claude, heres your quick update on the sota of coding models and harnesses mid august 2026

codex is good, both cli and desktop app, you get lots of usage on any plan. sol is good! and gets the job done, write or dictate a very long and thoughtful prompt, and leave sol xhigh or max fast working on it for an hour or so

omp is an amazing harness, any feature claude code or codex is adding has likely already been here for a couple months. good harness which im suggesting to all my developer friends, but for everyone else codex is the better option due to its simplicity and being the plug and play option

claude is decent, but not great. all models are somehow getting restrictive. you get basically unlimited opus on max plans, fable is good but slow and the random guardrails suck soo much which is why i havent used it once in weeks now.

gemini 3.7 is great for speed. everyone is sleeping on it, including even me

kimi k3 - great for frontend, one of the few models thats willing to commit crimes for you AND has the intelligence to have a chance at actually succeeding;

ds pro and flash are fast but not something id actually use for important things, unlike sol, fable and maybe 3.7 here and there

glm 5.3 i haven't tested yet

honorable mention to local models which are actually getting good now! 5090s will continue to get more and more expensive in the coming months. sadly.

theres way way more than claude in this world and its taking people surprisingly long to figure that out. maybe its for the best!

reply
I only have the $20 claude subscription. Last weekend I was doing a fairly heavy task (porting quake to raspberry pi native GLES 1.0) and ran out of claude usage twice, then hooked in with Luna in OpenCode and finished everything off for like $0.40 in tokens, which was impressive.

With Opus 5.0 being kinda crappy vs 4.8, I think Anthropic is in trouble.

reply
I’m sure it depends on the type of work, but for mine, Codex is much more helpful. Honestly, it mostly comes down to it being significantly faster, probably because as many have said, it seems tuned to not spit out word vomit, both in its chat interactions, and its code (Claude is obsessed with massive comment blocks that are basically guaranteed to become dead context noise if you ever use it to iterate on code).

I mostly do very obsessive, tightly scoped, carefully thought out small changes on a fairly boring stack, one interaction at a time, verifying functionality and code. I know what I am doing, but I also know what I don’t like doing (the same exact set of things I’ve already done a dozen times in my career)

reply
Which models? It is not useful to compare harnesses without this information.
reply
> Changes created by Codex had fewer comments in Ruby/Ruby on Rails code. I liked that a lot, and I will soon share some experiments I ran on this.

Why is fewer comments a good thing?

reply
Claude can add comments in code that are better just living as a comment on the PR.

You'll ask it to do something and it'll comment the code with an answer to what you asked it, rather than just explanatory comments to whoever comes after.

There's also a second issue that if the code is actually incorrect, the comment can nevertheless bolster the case for it.

reply
Claude assumes humans won't look at code anymore. The comments are for the next Claude that comes in to change something.
reply
> Claude can add comments in code that are better just living as a comment on the PR.

Not to Claude – its own, old comments have helped me/it solve new issues on more than one occasion.

reply
I found that Claude would litter the codebase with what felt like notes-to-self. Sometimes it would make an abstraction that wasn't very well thought out and when I pushed back on this choice, it would usually go with something more along the lines of what I suggested in my pushback, but left a comment like "use the git CLI instead of re-implementing git" or something.

It felt like it was commenting on the diff sometimes instead of what the code was doing.

reply
Claude comments often contain the whole iterative chain of decisions that led to the current state.

Useful for the LLM to know the "why", but not something a human would do, unless it's a very critical and confusing part of the code.

reply
Claude is creating verbose comments with recent models and people are are tired of it
reply
Those verbose comments provide context for why something is there way it is, so it can take those decisions in account when making changes in the future.
reply
If they have in mind what I think of when I think of claude comments then frequently they are only relevant to the back and forth that produced the code and are exaggerated to the point of being misleading. A very common example is to land on something that isn't quite right or doesn't quite work, prompt an adjustment, and then the adjustment will have some grandiose prose about "preventing the critical bug that shipped once." People just need to clean up such litter manually but it would be nice if the models generated less of it.
reply
If one needs to dig history, then git log -p and similar are way more useful and reflect the real history rather than LLM inference about it. Comments reflecting the goal are more useful as neither history nor code itself covers it.
reply
> why something is there way it is

It writes out stories describing what isn't there or what used to be there. It's usually not helpful, just noise. It also likes to write it in very verbose AI-styled prose.

reply
Those massive comments generally refer to intermediate states that never shipped, making them utterly useless, noisy and confusing as a permanent artifact. They're sometimes useful to reviewers, so a commit message or pull request comment is much more appropriate.
reply
I broadly agreed with the authors experience, although I wouldn't say codex does anything "wrong". I think different agents/LLM's have different personalities, and it takes learning to understand how to get them to do what you want. I had the same experience when we started using claude at work, and I was trained on codex. Claude seemed to do everything "wrong", because I was writing instructions designed for codex.

I do agree claude looks for more things to do in your repo, whereas codex is more likely to do what its old and stop. Which is better is personal preference as far as I can tell.

reply
Agree with most of these.

One thing I don’t love about codex/sol is I find it tends to overengineer and be overly cautious.

I was using it to do create some scraping + data processing.

It went kind of crazy on the provenance, need at least 3 sources of consensus before promoting facts type bullshit.

defined a bunch of enums and gates.

I just wanted scrape some site data and put it into a SQLite dB. Like chill codex.

I feel like Claude is better at that.

reply
As a follow up.

I feel like codex/sol is better at well scoped hard technical problem.

Where it can sort of run this brute force analytical loop.

Like doing performance optimization or other search type problems. I think the math proofs are good examples of this.

reply
What, you don't like it proposing sha256 checksums and state enums for everything?? :D It does seem to have this predilection, but I find it calms down if I tell it to simplify for "this phase". Sure, we'll pick that up down the road.. I promise. :D
reply