In a head-to-head test to build a Polymarket clone, Anthropic's Opus 4.6 produced a visually polished, feature-rich app. OpenAI's Codex 5.3 was faster but delivered a basic MVP that required multiple design revisions. The multi-agent "research first" approach of Opus resulted in a superior initial product.
Related Insights
When choosing between Opus 4.6 and Codex 5.3, consider their failure modes. Opus can get stuck in "analysis paralysis" with ambiguous prompts, hesitating to execute. Conversely, Codex can be overconfident, quickly locking onto a flawed approach, though it can be steered back on course.
A key new feature in the Opus 4.6 API is "Adaptive Thinking," which lets developers specify the level of effort the model applies to a task. Setting the effort to 'max' forces the model to think without constraints on depth, a powerful but resource-intensive option exclusive to the new version.
The latest models from Anthropic (Opus 4.6) and OpenAI (Codex 5.3) represent two distinct engineering methodologies. Opus is an autonomous agent you delegate to, while Codex is an interactive collaborator you pair-program with. Choosing a model is now a workflow decision, not just a performance one.
Unlike models that immediately generate code, Opus 4.5 first created a detailed to-do list within the IDE. This planning phase resulted in a more thoughtful and functional redesign, demonstrating that a model's structured process is as crucial as its raw capability.
Unlike previous models that frequently failed, Opus 4.5 allows for a fluid, uninterrupted coding process. The AI can build complex applications from a simple prompt and autonomously fix its own errors, representing a significant leap in capability and reliability for developers.
The new multi-agent architecture in Opus 4.6, while powerful, dramatically increases token consumption. Each agent runs its own process, multiplying token usage for a single prompt. This is a savvy business strategy, as the model's most advanced feature is also its most lucrative for Anthropic.
The differing capabilities of new AI models align with distinct engineering roles. Anthropic's Opus 4.6 acts like a thoughtful "staff engineer," excelling at code comprehension and architectural refactors. In contrast, OpenAI's Codex 5.3 is the scrappy "founding engineer," optimized for rapid, end-to-end application generation.
The user experience of leading AI coding agents differs significantly. Claude Code is perceived as engaging and 'fun,' like a video game, which encourages exploration and repeated use. OpenAI's Codex, while powerful, feels like a 'hard to use superpower tool,' highlighting how UX and model personality are key competitive vectors.
Effective prompting requires adapting your language to the AI's core design. For Anthropic's agent-based Opus 4.6, the optimal prompt is to "create an agent team" with defined roles. For OpenAI's monolithic Codex 5.3, the equivalent prompt is to instruct it to "think deeply" about those same roles itself.
The comparison reveals that different AI models excel at specific tasks. Opus 4.5 is a strong front-end designer, while Codex 5.1 might be better for back-end logic. The optimal workflow involves "model switching"—assigning the right AI to the right part of the development process.