Honestly this smells a bit like the situation they had a few years ago with a lot of different teams in Google inventing new chat and video call tools. All of which then flopped and got discontinued. Google exporting their own internal chaos. How many coding tools can you have in one company?!
OpenAI and Anthropic seem more focused currently. I mostly focus on OpenAI's codex because I don't want to maintain two subscriptions. Switching tools is a bit disruptive and not something I want to do every few days/weeks.
The whole agentic coding revolution didn't really start moving until Claude Code rolled out almost a year ago now. Anthropic deserves kudos for that. Initially it was limited by small context sizes and wasn't that effective on large code bases. So, I stuck with ChatGPT and OpenAI; mainly because Claude for Desktop was a bit underwhelming and I felt OpenAI had their shit together a bit more in terms of UX, which I think matters at least as much as model quality for being able to effectively use AI. Arguably, since about the summer, Codex and Claude Code are well matched in terms of features/capabilities. Some prefer one or the other or use both. Coded had a reputation of being maybe slightly better with larger code bases. I don't think that is valid anymore as of the last few model releases.
Since about the gpt 5 generation of models released around last summer, I'm able to work on whole git repositories with codex. Our backend is about five years old; about 85K lines of code. Not huge but big enough that there was no way in hell LLMs were able to make sense of it before that. I only did the first big pull requests with codex on this backend in the last two months. This stuff is still very new.
I'm sure that with a lot of tool juggling and experimentation I could have gotten there a few weeks/months earlier But not much more. And I don't actually have time to be constantly fiddling with tools and trying out a lot of stuff. I don't need to be the first to try everything out.