Are you having a positive experience with Codex compared to Claude Code? Codex in my brief experience was... not good w/ 5.1
It seems to be very efficient context-wise, but at the same time made precise context-management much harder.
Opus 4.5 is quite a magnificent improvement over Sonnet 4.5, in CC, though.
Re tfa - I accidentally discovered the new lsp support 2 days ago on a side project in rust, and it’s working very well.
And yes +1 for opus. Anthropic delivered a winner after fucking up the previous opus 4.1 release.
- Codex required around 30 passes on that loop, Claude did it in ~5-7.
- I thought Codex's was "prettier", but both were functional.
- I dug into Claude's result in more depth, and had to fix ~5-10 things.
- Codex I didn't dig into testing quite as deeply, but it seemed to need less fixing. Still not sure if that is because of a more superficial view.
- Still a work in progress, have not completed a full document signing workflow in either.Codex is an outsourcing company, you give specs, they give you results. No communication in between. It's very good at larger analysis tasks (code coverage, health etc). Whatever it does, it does it sloooowwwllyyy.
Claude is like a pair programmer, you can follow what it's doing, interrupt and redirect it if it starts going off track. It's very much geared towards "get it done" rather than maximum code quality.
They feel like different coworker archetypes. Codex often does better end-to-end (plan + code in one pass). Claude Code can be less consistent on the planning step, but once you give it a solid plan it’s stellar at implementation.
I probably do better with Codex mostly due to familiarity; I’ve learned how it “thinks” and how to prompt it effectively. Opus 4.5 felt awkward for me for the same reason: I’m used to the GPT-5.x / Codex interaction style. Co-workers are the inverse, they adore Opus 4.5 and feel Codex is weird.