Grok vs Claude vs Codex: which is best for coding?

It has only been a few days since Anthropic announced their new model Claude Sonnet 4.5, and I wanted to see for myself if the hype matches reality. Instead of reading benchmarks, I opened Cursor and ran some coding tests to feel it as an end user.

My goal with this test wasn’t to cover every possible case or measure the model’s intelligence. I just wanted to try a few real-world tasks that I deal with in my day-to-day work, and see how the models do in terms of code quality, speed, and output. This is purely a personal experiment, not an academic or comprehensive benchmark. You might see it differently, and that’s fine, I just want to give you a quick snapshot before you run your own tests.

I decided to test two key aspects of a developer’s workflow:

• Generating code for a new feature from scratch
• Generating a test suite for an existing function

I put three of the top coding models to the test: Anthropic’s new Claude Sonnet 4.5, OpenAI’s GPT-5 Codex, and xAI’s Grok Code Fast 1.

Test 1: Generating a New App

For the first test, I wanted to see how well each model could handle a greenfield project, a common starting point for any new idea.

The Prompt

“Generate a complete, production-ready React application using Vite and Tailwind CSS. The application should be a responsive image gallery. It should fetch images from a placeholder API (like picsum.photos), display them in a grid, and open a larger view in a modal when an image is clicked. Include basic styling for a clean, modern look and feel. Structure the code into logical components and provide instructions for running the project.”

Impression

Claude Sonnet 4.5

• This was impressively fast, completing the entire task in about a minute. It presented a clean, clear to-do list that was easy for an engineer to follow.
• It was built with JavaScript and JSX, ran perfectly on the first try, styling was ok.
• The code structure and component splitting were clean, simple, and exactly what I was looking for.
• It even included a dark mode, which I hadn’t requested.
• This was my favorite output of the three.

GPT-5 Codex

• This model took a more methodical, but much slower approach. The process required me to manually confirm a series of scaffolding CLI commands, and the whole task took about a few minutes.
• The final app also use JavaScript and JSX, it was fully functional on the first try.
• The styling was better than Claude Sonnet 4.5‘s.
• It also added an infinity scrolling feature I didn’t ask for, which was great.
• While the code structure was good, it felt a bit overcomplicated for my simple request.
• The output was high-quality, but the process was a bit cumbersome.

Grok Code Fast 1

• The experience here was similar to GPT-5 Codex, taking a few minutes to complete.
• The app, which it generated using TypeScript, did start on the first try, but the functionality was broken and the CSS was messy.
• The code structure and component splitting weren’t good, and I was not a fan of the code it generated.
• The cost is significantly lower compared to the other models.

Output

Claude Sonnet 4.5

GPT-5 Codex

Grok Code Fast 1

Output: Main screen

Output: Image modal

Could not work as expected

Detail comparision

Generated Todo list

Claude Sonnet 4.5

GPT-5 Codex

Grok Code Fast 1

Claude Sonnet 4.5 delivers the most concise and focused plan.

• Aligned tightly with the prompt, it sticks to the core requirements.
• Structured around three main components: ImageCard, ImageModal, and ImageGallery.
• Smartly groups related tasks (ex: building the gallery and API integration together).
• No unnecessary features or extra technologies.
• Easiest to read at a glance, with a straight path to the final output.

GPT-5 Codex offers the most feature-rich, production-oriented approach.

• Goes beyond the prompt by adding pagination, loading/empty states, and polished styling.
• Considers usability with keyboard/escape support.
• Separates logic via an image fetch hook and types, showing modern React best practices.
• Treats the task more like building a complete webpage than just a component set.

Grok-code-fast-1 is the most detailed and step-by-step.

• Breaks everything into 10 small tasks, covering setup and functionality separately.
• Explicitly chooses Vite + React + TypeScript from the start.
• Translate the prompt into coding actions.

At this stage, GPT-5 Codex is the most thoughtful, though it also introduces more complexity in the implementation.

If I had to choose, Claude Sonnet 4.5 best matches my preferred style of working. Grok Code Fast 1 provides a clear step-by-step setup, but lacks an overall implementation structure.

Folder structure & components breakdown

Claude Sonnet 4.5‘s structure is the simplest and most direct of the three. It’s a classic JavaScript-based React project.

• It created three components: ImageCard.jsx, ImageGallery.jsx, and ImageModal.jsx. Simple and good enough structure.
• It created ImageGallery.jsx as a “container” component to manage the layout of the image cards, which is a good structure.

GPT-5 Codex‘s structure is the most sophisticated and demonstrates an understanding of advanced React patterns for building larger, more complex applications.

• It created a hooks folder containing a custom hook: useImageFeed.js. It separates the application’s logic (like fetching data, managing state, etc.) from the UI components. This makes the logic and the components easier to test and reuse.
• The components directory is much more detailed.

Grok Code Fast 1‘s structure is clean and modern for TypeScript & React development.

• The components folder contains two core UI pieces: ImageCard.tsx and Modal.tsx. This is a common way to organize UI elements.
• The core logic is likely bundled within App.tsx, making it less modular.
• The structure is less organized and clean compared to the others.

After reviewing the code, I found that the structure from GPT-5 Codex is robust enough for a production environment.

In contrast, the code from Claude Sonnet 4.5 is simple and clean, making it an excellent starting point for a developer. I wasn’t a fan of the structure from Grok Code Fast 1 in this test.

I’d consider it a tie between GPT-5 Codex and Claude Sonnet 4.5, as they both excel in different areas.

Line of Code

Claude Sonnet 4.5

• Implementation is leaner than GPT-5 Codex but heavier than Grok Code Fast 1.
• Best documentation coverage.
• It makes me feel a balance between implementation and documentation.

GPT-5 Codex

• Heaviest on real application logic, so we can understand that it is the most feature-rich implementation.
• Docs are light.

Grok Code Fast 1

• Much lighter real app logic compared to GPT-5 Codex and Claude Sonnet 4.5, explain why the functionalities didn’t work.
• Docs are better than Codex.

In summary, both GPT-5 Codex and Claude Sonnet 4.5 performed well in this test.

Personally, I value speed and simplicity, so I’d choose Claude Sonnet 4.5 for execution. However, for the planning phase, I’d lean on GPT-5 Codex because of its thoroughness.

Test 2: Writing Tests

For the second test, I wanted to see how each model would handle writing tests for a function, the kind of everyday task engineers deal with regularly.

The Prompt

Generate a Jest test suite with edge cases for this function. Put the file in a util folder.

function divide(a, b) { return a / b; }

Results

Claude Sonnet 4.5

GPT-5 Codex

Grok Code Fast 1

Claude Sonnet 4.5

• Fast to generate the test script and asked about the test setup.
• After completing the test setup, it auto ran and double-checked coverage.
• Produced 23 test cases covering division by zero, floats, negatives, and large numbers. Very detailed and thorough.
  • Covers all from Codex + Grok
  • Adds more categories:
    • Floating point division
    • Edge cases with overflow
    • Type coercion edge cases (numeric strings, booleans, null, undefined)
• Limitations:
  • More verbose, harder to maintain.
  • Some cases may be unrealistic for real-world usage.

GPT-5 Codex

• Quick and direct, produced 8 test cases.
  • Positive/negative integers
  • Fractional results
  • Division by zero (Infinity, -Infinity, NaN)
  • Special handling with Infinity numerator
  • Zero result with Infinity denominator
• Asked about setup but didn’t check coverage.
• Got the basics right, but shallow.
• Style is concise, direct, and structured, ensuring correctness without redundancy.
• Coverage is ok, but scope is narrower compared to the other two models.
• May miss some rare edge cases like non-numeric inputs or type coercion.

Grok Code Fast 1:

• Slower, required setup commands first, similar to the first test. I need to manually approve a lot of CLI commands to do the test setup.
• The good thing is that it only needs 1 prompt to complete everything, from setup to generating test cases.
• Ended with 12 test cases. Solid coverage but no coverage check.
  • Very large numbers
  • Very small numbers
  • Floating point precision issues
  • Boundary values
  • Non-numeric inputs
  • Special numeric values (NaN, Infinity, etc.)
• Organized in a clean scenario-driven approach, making it easy to reason about what’s tested, covering realistic as well as edge inputs.

Personally, Grok Code Fast 1 offers the most practical suite for production use.

GPT-5 Codex is ideal for a lean starting point, and Claude Sonnet 4.5 is best when maximum safety and completeness are required.

Cost Comparison

Here’s how the three providers price their coding models (per million tokens):

Model	Input Price (per 1M token)	Output Price (per 1M token)
Claude-sonnet-4.5	$3.00	$15.00
GPT-5 Codex	$1.25	$10.00
Grok-code-fast-1	$0.20	$1.50

(Prices are not 100% exact; they vary depending on provider updates. You can check the latest on OpenRouter)

If cost is the biggest factor, I would consider Grok Code Fast 1, but the way I prompt will be significantly different and cost more effort.

Conclusion

After spending a good amount of time with these models, I have a clear favorite for my day-to-day coding work: Claude Sonnet 4.5. Honestly, it’s my top recommendation.

Now, if you’re trying to find a balance between cost and quality, GPT-5 Codex is a good choice. The code it writes is really polished and high-quality, and it’s more affordable to run.

But here’s the biggest takeaway for me: you don’t have to choose just one. A hybrid workflow seems like the real power.

• You could use GPT-5 Codex for the initial planning phase, since it’s so thoughtful about architecture.
• Then, when it’s time to actually write the code, switch over to Claude Sonnet 4.5 to take advantage of its raw speed and incredible thoroughness.
• And even though Claude Sonnet 4.5 generates the most comprehensive test cases, Grok Code Fast 1 felt more practical for production use, so when it comes to writing tests, Grok is not a bad choice.

I’m glad we could dive into this together. I’m really interested to hear about your own experiences as you get to know these tools!