Skip to main content
Codex and Claude Code both inspect code, edit files, run commands and delegate work. Choose between them by testing the workflow you actually need: your editor or terminal, repository instructions, permission controls, available tools and review process. Use both when an independent review or a separate testing role earns its extra coordination effort. Neither product needs AMS for its native coding or delegation features. AMS is an optional shared conversation for work that crosses independent tasks, tools or machines. For a complete tester–builder example, see Claude Code and Codex working together. Vendor features checked against official documentation on 5 November 2026. Availability depends on the client version, account, provider and organization policy. This guide makes no comparative speed, quality or price claim.

Compare the native features first

These are first-party product capabilities. Codex and Claude Code are coding-agent products with execution tools and session controls. A useful comparison records both the selected model and the host where it runs; installed extensions can come from other publishers. The interface row is a reason to inspect the actual client, not assume that a terminal session has every desktop capability. Start with the official OpenAI documentation and Claude Code overview for supported surfaces.

Permissions are part of the comparison

In Codex, the sandbox defines accessible files and network resources; approvals determine when an action needs review. Automatic review changes who evaluates eligible approval requests without expanding the sandbox. In the CLI, inspect /permissions. See OpenAI’s permission documentation. Claude Code has tool-specific allow, ask and deny rules, managed policies and permission modes. Inspect /permissions there too. Its permission system and shell sandbox are complementary: the OS sandbox restricts shell processes, while permission rules apply before tool calls. Compare effective access to the same files, commands, network destinations and connected services. A run that pauses for approval and one with broader access are different configurations. Keep your organization’s required controls in place during evaluation. A role such as “reviewer” in a prompt does not itself enforce read-only filesystem access.

Repository instructions need checking in both tools

Codex uses an instruction discovery chain for AGENTS.md. Claude Code v2.1.277 and later can read AGENTS.md natively, but its default selection prefers project CLAUDE.md files when present. You can select both formats or import AGENTS.md from CLAUDE.md. Check Anthropic’s current loading rules and ask each session to identify the instructions it loaded. For shared conventions and explicit task handoffs, use sharing context between coding agents. Reading the same repository does not establish that two sessions loaded the same instructions.

Delegation, independent chats and messaging are different

Native delegation: Codex’s subagents are enabled by default in current releases. Ask explicitly for independent subtasks; the parent collects their results. Claude Code’s subagents run in separate context windows with configurable instructions, tools and permissions. Neither feature requires AMS. See the worked multiple Codex agents and multiple Claude Code agents guides. Independent chats: Opening another chat creates a separately steered conversation. A common folder gives access to common files; it does not make the chats parent and child. Pass the task contract, revision, owned paths and expected evidence explicitly. Codex’s projects and chats documentation describes project file context and separate transcripts. Use Git worktrees when separate tasks will edit; designate an integration owner even with separate checkouts. Claude’s native session collaboration: Claude Code also has cross-session messaging between supported sessions. Delivered messages can start a turn in an idle receiving session, subject to its inbound controls. They carry text, rather than the sender’s full transcript or files. Availability and cross-machine behavior have version and provider requirements. Agent teams are another native option: a lead supervises teammates with shared tasks and direct messaging. Teams remain experimental and disabled by default. These capabilities are distinct from adding a cross-tool service. Interoperability: Both clients can connect to an MCP server, but shared MCP access does not merge their conversations, transfer permissions or make Claude Code a Codex subagent. Configure and authenticate each client separately, then verify its tools and scopes. See the official Codex MCP and Claude Code MCP documentation. Skills, plugins and hooks also need host-specific review; a common name does not guarantee identical behavior. See OpenAI’s skills and plugins, Codex hooks and Anthropic’s extension guide.

Try the same small review in each tool

This exercise checks a review workflow without dependencies, credentials in examples or a shared writer. It is a reproducible starting point, not a performance benchmark.

Prerequisites

  • Installed, signed-in Codex and Claude Code CLIs with permission to read the exercise directory.
  • A POSIX shell and Node.js 22 or newer.
  • A new disposable directory. Use your normal approved installation process if either CLI is missing; the exercise installs nothing.

1. Create a fixture with one known defect

Run this where agent-review-demo does not already exist:
Expected baseline: exit status 1, one passing test and one failing test. The implementation returns hello world where the second test expects hello-world. That failure is intentional.

2. Start a fresh review in each CLI

From this directory, run codex. Inspect /permissions, then give it the prompt below. End that session before starting claude from the same directory, inspect its /permissions, and give it the same prompt. Keep both sessions read-only for this comparison; do not enable bypass or full access to make it work.
The instruction about external services refers to agent tool actions; using either signed-in coding agent still uses its configured model service.

3. Check the outcome against the fixture

A useful answer identifies the missing internal-whitespace replacement and proposes a change equivalent to:
The files should remain unchanged, and the test should still have its intentional failure. A suggested patch is not an applied or verified fix. Inspect the files and rerun node --test label.test.mjs yourself if either session reports otherwise. Record correctness, evidence, permission interruptions, selected model, client version and usage. Then repeat with a representative task from your repository in equivalent clean snapshots. One tiny fixture cannot establish which product is better across a codebase. For cost comparisons, use your eligible plan and measured usage alongside the current OpenAI pricing documentation and Claude Code cost guidance.

When using both makes sense

For the second pattern, follow the existing Claude Code and Codex tester–builder guide. It covers the actual handoff, retest reports and host-scheduled check-ins. AMS can hold a shared channel for findings, ownership decisions and handoffs across those independent tasks. Storing an AMS message does not itself wake an inactive agent or prove the recipient read it. Arrange a supported host continuation or scheduled check, and require acknowledgement before overlapping edits. AMS does not add browser control, grant repository access or publish a fix. If you need that shared channel, start with the AMS quickstart and folder workspace setup. For automatic CLI coordination, first check ams workspace current --json from each task’s actual directory. Continue only when it succeeds with enabled: true, then use guarded ams --require-workspace commands. The worked guide covers the remaining setup.

Troubleshooting

The fixture and its intentional test failure were checked locally. No live Codex-versus-Claude benchmark, external account write or automated collaboration run was performed for this guide.