5.4, in my own testing, was almost always ahead of Opus 4.6 for reviews and planning. I'm on plus plan on openai, so I couldn't test it so deeply. Anyone who had more experience on both could perhaps chime in? Pros/cons compared to Opus? I'm invested in Claude ecosystem but the recent quality and session limits decrease have me on the edge.

▲

psadauskas an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I use opencode, so can toggle between Claude and Codex fairly easily, and do so whenever one of them is having problems (until yesterday, that is, when Claude blocked opencode for good, and I cancelled my account). This means I'm using the same prompts and instructions for both.

Personally, it seems like I have to redirect Opus/Sonnet much less often. GPT felt pretty "dense", it was more likely to ignore earlier instructions in the session, I had to remind it more often, and when I reviewed the code it produced I had to make more corrections that seemed obvious.

Entirely subjective, but I also find I prefer Claude's "personality" to ChatGPT, but I couldn't point to any specific differences.

▲

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

Same for me. I'm on $20 plan for both and I use them both interchangeably. Similar "intelligence" imo. Just different way of doing things, that's all. But Claude is getting worse in terms of token usage so I've cancelled my plan last month.

▲

conradkay 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah it's probably a bit better overall. 5.4 is a month newer than Opus 4.6

My guess is that 5.5 will come out soon and be significantly better so you'd want to be using Codex then, but then when Opus 5 comes out probably back to claude code

Also 5.4 has fast mode, and higher usage limits since it's cheaper

▲

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

Do you mind elaborating on your experience here?

Just curious as I've often heard that Claude was superior for planning/architecture work while ChatGPT was superior for actual implementation and finding bugs.

▲

patates 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.

It compensates for most during implementation if you make it use TDD by using superpower et al, or just telling it to do so.

GPT 5.4 makes more simple plans (compared to superpowers - a plugin from the official claude plugin marketplace - not the plan mode), but can better fill the details while implementing.

Plan mode in Claude Code got much better in the last months, but the lacking details cannot be compensated by the model during the implementation.

So my workflow has been:

Make claude plan with superpowers:brainstorm, review the spec, make updates, give the spec to gpt, usually to witness grave errors found by gpt, spec gets updates, another manual review, (many iterations later), final spec is written, write the plan, gpt finds mind boggling errors, (many iterations later), claude agent swarm implements, gpt finds even more errors, I find errors, fix fix fix, manual code review and red tests from me, tests get fixed (many iterations later) finally something usable with stylistic issues at most (human opinion)!

This happens with the most complex features that'd be a nightmare to implement even for the most experienced programmers of course. For basic things, most SOTA modals can one-shot anyway.

	▲	giwook 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Interesting. Have you ever had Claude re-review its plan after having it draft the original plan? Or do you give it to GPT right away to review? Just curious as I'm trying to branch out from using Claude for everything, and I've been following a somewhat similar workflow to yours, except just having Claude review and re-review its plan (sometimes using different roles, e.g. system architect vs SWE vs QA eng) and it will similarly identify issues that it missed originally. But now I'm curious to try this while weaving in more GPT.

▲

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

[deleted]

▲

srslyTrying2hlp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]