I don’t have much time to evaluate tools every months and I have settled on Cursor. I’m curious on what I’m missing when using the same models?
If you mostly have small codebases that fit in context, or make many small changes interactively, it's not really great for that (though it can handle it too). It'll just be spending most of its time poking around the codebase, when the whole thing should have just been loaded... (Too bad there's no small repo mode. I made startup hook that just dumps cat dir into context, but yeah, should be a toggle.)
Though for more automated work, one thing you miss with Cursor is sub agents. And then to a lesser extent skills (these are pretty easy to emulate in other tools). I'm sure it's only a matter of time though.
Cursor has agent, but that's like whoever else tried to copy the Model T while Ford was developing it.
Claude Code is overrated as it uses many of its features and modalities to compensate for model shortcomings that are not as necessary for steering state of the art models like GPT 5.2
GPT 5.2 simply obeys instruction to assemble a plan and avoids the need to compensate for poor steerability that would require the user to manually manage modalities.
Opus has improved though so the plan mode is less necessary than it was before, but it is still far behind state of art steerability.
> See: https://artificialanalysis.ai
The field moves fast. Per artificialanalysis, Opus 4.5 is currently behind GPT-5.2 (x-high) and Gemini 3 Pro. Even Google's cheaper Gemini 3 Flash model seems to be slightly ahead of Opus 4.5.
LM Arena shows Claude Opus 4.5 on top
In addition to whatever they are exposed to as part of pre-training, it'd be interesting to know what kind of coding tasks these models are being RL-trained for? Are things like web development and maybe Python/ML coding overemphasized, or are they also being trained on things like Linux/Windows/embedded development etc in different languages?
https://x.com/METR_Evals/status/2002203627377574113
> Even Google's cheaper Gemini 3 Flash model seems to be slightly ahead of Opus 4.5.
What an insane take for anybody uses these models daily.
It is also out of date as it does not include 5.2 Codex.
Per my point about steerability compensated for by modalities and other harness features: Opus 4.5 scores 58% while GPT 5.2 scores 75% for the instruction following benchmark in your link! Thanks for the hard evidence - GPT 5.2 is 30% ahead of Opus 4.5 there. No wonder Claude Code needs those harness features for the user to manually reign in control over its instruction following capability.