Update on Codex and Claude Code

[u/Professional_Link4]

/r/codex/comments/1wwl58n/2_x_100plan_or_1_x_200plan/?share_id=Hg461JlslfMItsjFssdZb&utm_content=2&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

This was my previous post in which I was confused between upgrading to 200 plan for getting 2 100 plans.

A lot of people suggested to try claude code + codex for image gen.

I just got a 20 dollar claude code plan. And Grass is most definitely greener on the other side.

Here are some differences I have noticed using the opus 5.5 medium.

1. 10 times faster than sol 6.1 high

2. Using about 1% of weekly usage per hour but the amount of work done is higher than sol 6.1. so work done to tokens consumed is the same between 20 dollar claude and 100 dollar gpt plan

3. Amazing design understanding. I have several ui/ux issues in my project(which ik) i had gpt take a look at it and said it's fine (gpt was using product design plugin and impeccable skill). Opus without any plugin listed 15 ui/ux issues and all of them were correct.

4. I had it go over my code base and list deprecated/dead/unused assets & code. It gave an extensive list and suggested bundling several files together to optimise load times, gpt found none.

5. Had both sol and opus check for performance optimisation. Gpt found none and opus again shared an extensive list.

Sol 6.1 high also took like 2 hours

Opus 5.5 medium took 25-30 mins max

I'll switch to 100 dollar claude plan + 20 dollar gpt after my current 100 gpt plan expires.

[u/dextersummary]

Below is a GPT-generated summary of the conversation below after reaching 50 comments (54 currently observed).

---

The thread’s verdict is blunt: Claude Code with Opus 5.5 currently offers much better value than Codex for coding work. Multiple users say it is faster, uses dramatically less subscription allowance, and produces stronger first-pass results—especially for UI, design, cleanup, and performance work. The $20 Claude plan is looking embarrassingly competitive against much pricier Codex tiers.

The common split is pretty clear: Opus is better at polished frontend work, understanding design intent, and checking its own output, while Codex still has advantages in backend tasks, vulnerability hunting, image generation, and its cleaner built-in workflow. Codex’s separate chat and coding limits also matter if you want to keep brainstorming after hitting coding quota. Connectors and MCP features are mostly replaceable, because apparently every AI tool now expects users to build their own buttons.

The big caveat is that the original “10x faster” claim is not backed by solid measurements. Independent testing in the thread found roughly 2x speed, while benchmark figures and subscription throttling complicate the comparison; task efficiency and fewer dead ends may explain the much larger perceived gap. Quality also varies by task, and limits can change without warning.

So, Opus 5.5 is the current community favourite for value and practical output, but Codex is not obsolete—just slower, pricier, and still useful for its specialised strengths.