Who is “us”? It does seem that some scientists prefer Codex for its math capabilities but when it comes to general frontend and backend construction, Claude Code is just as good and possibly made better with its extensive Skills library.

Both codex and Claude code fail when it comes to extremely sophisticated programming for distributed systems

▲

keldaris 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As a scientist (computational physicist, so plenty of math, but also plenty of code, from Python PoCs to explicit SIMD and GPU code, mostly various subsets of C/C++), I can confirm - Codex is qualitatively better for my usecases than Claude. I keep retesting them (not on benchmarks, I simply use both in parallel for my work and see what happens) after every version update and ever since 5.2 Codex seems further and further ahead. The token limits are also far more generous (and it matters, I found it fairly easy to hit the 5h limit on max tier Claude), but mostly it's about quality - the probability that the model will give me something useful I can iterate on as opposed to discard immediately is much higher with Codex.

For the few times I've used both models side by side on more typical tasks (not so much web stuff, which I don't do much of, but more conventional Python scripts, CLI utilities in C, some OpenGL), they seem much more evenly matched. I haven't found a case where Claude would be markedly superior since Codex 5.2 came out, but I'm sure there are plenty. In my view, benchmarks are completely irrelevant at this point, just use models side by side on representative bits of your real work and stick with what works best for you. My software engineer friends often react with disbelief when I say I much prefer Codex, but in my experience it is not a close comparison.

	▲	ricksunny 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>As a scientist (computational physicist, Is there one that you prefer for, i dunno, physics?

▲

the__alchemist 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor are old news. If you're having problems, it's because you're not using the latest hotness: Cludge. Everyone is using it now - don't get left behind.

	▲	outside1234 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Cludge has been left behind by Clanker, that’s the new hotness. 45B valuation!

▲

zeroxfe 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm in that camp -- I have the max-tier subscription to pretty much all the services, and for now Codex seems to win. Primarily because 1) long horizon development tasks are much more reliable with codex, and 2) OpenAI is far more generous with the token limits.

Gemini seems to be the worst of the three, and some open-weight models are not too bad (like Kimi k2.5). Cursor is still pretty good, and copilot just really really sucks.

▲

unsupp0rted 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Us = me and say /r/codex or wherever Codex users are. I've tried both, liked both, but in my projects one clearly produces better results, more maintainable code and does a better job of debugging and refactoring.

▲

sampullman 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's interesting, I actively use both and usually find it to be a toss up which one performs better at a given task. I generally find Claude to be better with complex tool calls and Codex to be better at reviewing code, but otherwise don't see a significant difference.

▲

SOLAR_FIELDS 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you want to find an advocate for Codex that can give a pretty good answer as to why they think it's better, go ask Eric Provencher. He develops https://repoprompt.com/. He spends a lot of time thinking in this space and prefers Codex over Claude, though I haven't checked recently to see if he still has that opinion. He's pretty reachable on Discord if you poke around a bit.

▲

aswanson 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Any difference in performance on mobile development?

	▲	sampullman 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For that I'm not so sure. I tried both early 2025 and was disappointed in their ability to deal with a TCA based app (iOS) and Jetpack compose stuff on Android, but I assume Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 are much better.

▲

rocketpastsix 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

yea Im not in this "us" you speak of.

▲

zem 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've found claude startlingly good at debugging race conditions and other multithreading issues though.

	▲	josephg 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My rule of thumb is that its good for anything "broad", and weaker for anything "deep". Broad tasks are tasks which require working knowledge of lots of random stuff. Its bad at deep work - like implementing a complex, novel algorithm. LLMs aren't able to achieve 100% correctness of every line of code. But luckily, 100% correctness is not required for debugging. So its better at that sort of thing. Its also (comparatively) good at reading lots and lots of code. Better than I am - I get bogged down in details and I exhaust quickly. An example of broad work is something like: "Compile this C# code to webassembly, then run it from this go program. Write a set of benchmarks of the result, and compare it to the C# code running natively, and this python implementation. Make a chart of the data add it to this latex code." Each of the steps is simple if you have expertise in the languages and tools. But a lot of work otherwise. But for me to do that, I'd need to figure out C# webassembly compilation and go wasm libraries. I'd need to find a good charting library. And so on. I think its decent at debugging because debugging requires reading a lot of code. And there's lots of weird tools and approaches you can use to debug something. And its not mission critical that every approach works. Debugging plays to the strengths of LLMs.

▲

7thpower 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not a scientist and use codex for anything complex.

I enjoy using CC more and use it for non coding tasks primarily, but for anything complex (honestly most of what I do is not that complex), I feel like I am trading future toil for a dopamine hit.