I used to be a hardcore Cursor agent user for months. In fact, I even wrote a Cursor tips article that thousands of developers still read every week. Then Claude Code arrived, and it instantly became my go-to tool.
But things changed again… and honestly, I didn’t expect it.
Today, Codex has become my daily driver.
I didn’t want to switch, but there are solid reasons why it happened. So, here’s a complete breakdown comparing agents, features, pricing, and user experience — and why Codeex ultimately came out on top for me.
Agent Comparison: Cursor vs Claude Code vs Codex
To be completely honest, all these tools are slowly converging. The latest Cursor agent feels very similar to Claude Code’s latest agent, which also feels similar to Codeex’s agent. Cursor definitely laid the foundation first, Claude Code refined it, and then Cursor and Codeex both incorporated those improvements — like better diffing and to-do lists.
But I’ve noticed some unique behaviors:
- Codex tends to reason longer but outputs tokens faster.
- Claude Code reasons a bit less but seems to have a slower tokens-per-second output.
- Cursor on GPT-5 spends a lot of time reasoning (sometimes too much), while switching Cursor to Stellite reduces reasoning time but slows output slightly.
What stands out to me with Codeex is the model selection experience.
You can choose low, medium, high, or minimal reasoning, which is something I love. Cloud Code only offers two model choices, and Cursor offers so many that it sometimes feels overwhelming.
Another thing I value: the same company that makes Codeex also trains the models. There’s no middleman, so pricing and optimization tend to be smoother and more efficient.
Overall, all three agents are solid.
But I have a slight preference for Codex (and Claude Code) because they seem tightly integrated with their own model ecosystems.
Pricing: The Biggest Reason My Loyalty Shifted
This is where the real difference lies.
- Codex is bundled with standard ChatGPT-style plans.
- Claude Code comes with standard Claude plans.
- All of them offer free, ~$20, and $100–$200 tiers.
But here’s the key:
GPT-5 is significantly more efficient than Claude Sonnet and especially Claude Opus.
In real-world usage (including our tests at Builder.io):
- GPT-5 costs about ⅓ of Claude Sonnet
- And about ¹⁄₁₀ of Claude Opus
Yet the model quality is comparable across most production tasks.
Because of this, Codeex simply gives far more usage per dollar.
We’ve integrated all these models into Builder.io, and the data consistently shows:
- GPT-5 variants are cheaper
- Users actually prefer them for most tasks
- Only one use case (design-to-code conversion) performs better with Claude Sonnet
Even more interesting:
People hit limits on Claude very quickly, even on the $100–$200 plans.
With Codeex? It’s extremely rare for anyone to hit limits on the Pro plans.
And these aren’t “coding-only” plans either. You also get:
- Claude-style chat
- ChatGPT-level image and video generation
- A polished desktop app experience
- Better overall tooling
Claude does win in terms of MCP integration. But honestly, I’m a daily ChatGPT user, and Codeex feels like the better deal overall.
For most developers, pricing alone makes Codeex the obvious winner.
User Experience: Where Codex Quietly Gets It Right
In day-to-day usage, Codeex and Claude Code feel similar, but a few things push Codeex ahead.
- Claude’s permission system is frustrating. It doesn’t remember settings, and I’m constantly launching it with dangerously skipped permissions.
- Codex automatically detects Git repositories and behaves permissively by default — much smoother.
Cloud Code might have slightly better terminal UI, but not enough to matter.
Feature Comparison: Does More Actually Matter?
Claude Code offers more features.
You can build sub-agents, hooks, custom configs, and more. Cursor has a similar philosophy.
Codex? Much simpler.
But here’s the truth:
After using Claude Code extensively, I realized I barely care about features. I just want:
- The best agent
- A reliable instructions file
- Consistent, predictable behavior
That’s it.
I still use advanced features in Cursor or Claude when they’re there, but I don’t miss them when using Codeex. The agents.md standard is supported everywhere except Claude, which insists on claude.md, forcing me to maintain two files unnecessarily. That’s been a persistent annoyance.
The Game-Changer: Codex’s GitHub Integration
This is the real reason I switched.
I tried Claude Code’s GitHub app briefly. My whole team thought it… well… wasn’t great:
- Unhelpful reviews
- Too verbose
- Missed obvious bugs
- Can’t comment “@claude fix this” and get useful output
But Codeex? Completely different experience.
With Codeex GitHub integration:
- Auto code review actually catches subtle bugs
- You can ask Codeex to fix issues directly
- It works in the background and updates your PR
- The workflow feels smooth, reliable, and powerful
The best part is consistency:
The behavior I get in the terminal is identical to what I get in GitHub — same prompts, same configuration, same agent behavior.
Cursor’s Bugbot is the second-best tool in this area and genuinely good, but Codeex still feels more cohesive, especially because it comes straight from the model provider.
Codex + Builder.io: Solving the Only Missing Piece
My one complaint about Codeex used to be its lack of UI.
But now that we’ve fully integrated Codeex into Builder.io, even designers, PMs, and non-engineers can:
- Use Figma-like visual editing
- Generate or modify code through Codeex
- Push clean PRs without handoffs
- Collaborate on the same codebase and the same agents.md instructions
This unified workflow has been a massive productivity boost for our whole team.
Final Thoughts: Codex Is My Winner — But What’s Yours?
Right now, Codex is my clear winner.
I use it every day, we’ve integrated it into our products, and our whole team benefits from it.
But the real question is:
What do you think?
Have you:
- Tried Codeex or Builder.io?
- Used the Codeex CLI or background agents?
- Tested the PR bot or GitHub integration?
Did it work well for you? Or not so much?
