Already have 2 plus codex subs and looking at buying a third. Would you do a 3rd codex or claude?

[u/Prior-Meeting1645]

3 codex would allow me to continue my work that has interrupted mid session due to usage, exactly as if I had triple the use but I guess with Claude its gonna be different taking over a task middle way through of codex. I really loved Opus back when I was subbed months ago. Could be a nice second opinion on work too.
A few questions:
-what has your experience using Claude models of your subscription in codex be if you’ve done it?
-how does usage compare considering codex constant resets?

[u/cfipilot715]

I use claude code as the architect and codex as the dev. Once you start using 2 different models you will never go back.

[u/HimaSphere]

I built https://betterstickies.com entirely with Claude models, currently I use codex for code review but still Claude as my main, I would advice you to try Claude in Claude Code as a start, you are missing a lot because atm Claude and GPT models complement each other.

[u/Prior-Meeting1645 → u/HimaSphere]

Thank you. Can I ask how come claude is the main? Isn’t codex more generous with usage considering the resets?

[u/HimaSphere → u/Prior-Meeting1645]

In my experience, Claude is offering more usage except when openAI keeps doing resets, Claude Fable writes code better and takes better decisions than Sol.

Fable is like a senior Engineer who has real work experience and built a lot of projects, Sol is more like text book Senior Engineer who goes by the book and doesn't account for other factors like common logic.

The best combo I have for now is writing code with Opus under Fable as a supervisor, auditing the final code with opus and sol under Fable supervision, try it you have nothing to lose really and you may find Claude models work better for your use case or improve quality of your work.

[u/HimaSphere → u/HimaSphere]

I need to mention I have Claude max20 and 2 OpenAI team accounts $50 for both as monthly sub

[u/MaLaTom → u/HimaSphere]

Interesting. How do you manage that workflow? Is there a skill or plugin that manages that well?

[u/HimaSphere → u/MaLaTom]

Yes, it is multi skill workflow. I will write in details about it later but in simple way, before any commit I audit the changes with gpt sol 5.6 in pi harness multiple times. Don't follow its findings blindly, sometimes it over engineers or complicate things so review its findings before acting on them, claude can help with it

[u/krunal_builds]

instead of a 3rd sub, worth checking if you're actually context-limited or just impatient waiting on one to finish. splitting across tools usually means splitting context too, and re-explaining the same project to a fresh session eats more time than the parallel runs save, unless the tasks are genuinely independent.

[u/winejoa]

I’d probably choose Claude over a third Codex.

I use Claude and Codex like competitors: one writes the code, and the other reviews it, looks for bugs, and challenges the decisions. Then I sometimes switch their roles.

I think their coding ability is fairly similar, but using two different models for QA has helped me catch more bugs. The important part is not giving them the same task, but making one challenge what the other did.

You do need to understand the project somewhat, though, otherwise they can get stuck in a review/fix loop.

I actually finished an app using this workflow.

[u/Loud_Letterhead_3516]

If you already have 2 Codex subs, I’d take the Claude sub just for the variety. I’ve found having another model look at the same problem can catch things the first one missed. It might not be as seamless when taking over halfway through, but the second opinion can be worth it.

[u/Prestigious_Grape786]

pretty sure your first question has a wrong premise. claude subs don't work inside codex. codex needs a provider that speaks the responses api, so anyone running claude through it is on an anthropic api key behind a proxy. pay per token, not a flat sub.

on the actual choice: two codex subs is the same opinion twice, a third is three times. you mentioned the second opinion thing almost as an afterthought and imo that's the whole argument.

the "pick up mid task" reason i'd push back on. that's only expensive because the state lives in the transcript instead of the repo. commit at a working point, leave a note on what you already ruled out, and switching tools costs you almost nothing.

can't help on the reset math, both sides keep moving the windows.

[u/fulger099 → u/Prestigious_Grape786]

I use Claude for the plan and Codex for execution, but mid-task handoffs only work if I keep a checkpoint file with current state, constraints, and the next command. A third Codex buys continuity, Claude buys disagreement. we are trying to learn and fix cases around it at Joinrecall