I’m not asking which one is better overall. I’m specifically curious about how people split implementation and code review between Codex and Claude.
Right now, I usually use Codex for implementation because the token/cost limits feel more practical for larger coding tasks comapred to Claude ridiculous token limit, then I use Claude to review the code, look for bugs, logic issues, missed edge cases, or possible improvements.
But sometimes Codex seriously impresses me with the issues it catches during reviews, so now I’m wondering if I should do the opposite:
Codex → code review/debugging
Claude → implementation
Or maybe use both for implementation/review depending on the situation but this consumes alot of time and tokens.
For people who have used both extensively, what workflow have you found works best?
Which one do you trust more for:
- Implementing features
- Reviewing existing code
- Finding subtle bugs
- Understanding large codebases
- Refactoring
- Debugging
- Catching things the other model missed
I feel a bit lost switching between the two because both occasionally outperform the other in ways I don’t expect.
Would love to hear from people who regularly use both, especially on larger real-world projects.
[link] [comments]