[briHass]

The bigger question is: does Anthropic have a big enough moat to matter?

I've used/use both, and find them pretty comparable, as far as the actual model backing the tool. That wasn't the case 9 months ago, but the world changes quickly.

[greggsy]

I don’t believe there will ever be a real moat in terms of technology, at least not for the next year or so. The arms race between the major players still changing month to month, and they will all be able to do what their competitors were doing g three months ago.

None of them are particularly sticky - you can move between them with relative ease in vscode for instance.

I think the only moat is going to be based on capacity, but even that isnt going to last long as the products are moved away from the cloud and closer your end devices.

[sbinnee]

It matters to me. Claude code is more extensible. They put a lot of efforts to hooks and plugins. Codex may get the job done today. But Claude will evolve faster.

[arrowsmith]

None of that matters if the model is worse. I say this as someone who uses both Claude Code and Codex all day every day — I agree with others in this thread that CC has much better UX and evolves faster, but I still use Codex more often because it's simply the better coder. Everything else is a distant second to model quality.

[steve-atx-7600]

What kind of tasks are you having success with on codex? I’ve had the opposite experience. I’ll occasional compare solutions between the latest opus and codex with codex on x-high thinking. Sometimes I do get solution from codex that is impressive because it discovered an edge case that Claude missed.

I did notice that codex - like Claude - is now better about auto delegating to agents for keeping the context focused and agents in parallel.

[ywvcbk]

Codex is opensource though and there are quite a few forks already.