Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro (3/9) prompt: Build a premium interactive isometric 3D cozy room using Vite + React + Three.js (react-three-fiber/drei), with all objects modeled in code (no external assets) and subtle ambient animations. Gemini looks good on initial impression but I feel like I have way... show more

Dev Ed

71,245 subscribers

77,206 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

MiniMax M2.7 is too good for it price🤯 Prompt : Build a premium interactive isometric 3D cozy room using Three.js in one html code block, with all objects modeled in code (no external assets) and subtle ambient animations and you can do 2 things of your choice to make it better

MiniMax M2.7 is too good for it price🤯 Prompt : Build a premium interactive isometric 3D cozy room using Three.js in one html code block, with all objects modeled in code (no external assets) and subtle ambient animations and you can do 2 things of your choice to make it better

Chetaslua

26,625 views • 6 months ago

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini Pro 3.1 (7/9) I wanted to do a physics simulation test, overall both models did a good job in this department, however Opus added nice animations to things like "Fan", "Magnet" whilst gemini just rendered them out as a red circle. Opus also included way more effects in its toolbox, like rocket, connecting shapes with rope, springs etc. Should note that in all of these tests, Opus one shotted all of them, whilst gemini took an extra 3-5 prompts to get the project compile :) prompt: Build a polished physics sandbox toy using React + Vite with a real physics engine (Matter.js or Rapier), where users can spawn, grab, throw, and connect objects with springs, hinges, and ropes, plus interactive gadgets like fans and thrusters.

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini Pro 3.1 (7/9) I wanted to do a physics simulation test, overall both models did a good job in this department, however Opus added nice animations to things like "Fan", "Magnet" whilst gemini just rendered them out as a red circle. Opus also included way more effects in its toolbox, like rocket, connecting shapes with rope, springs etc. Should note that in all of these tests, Opus one shotted all of them, whilst gemini took an extra 3-5 prompts to get the project compile :) prompt: Build a polished physics sandbox toy using React + Vite with a real physics engine (Matter.js or Rapier), where users can spawn, grab, throw, and connect objects with springs, hinges, and ropes, plus interactive gadgets like fans and thrusters.

Dev Ed

28,179 views • 6 months ago

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro (2/9) prompt: Build a premium Vite + React landing page for Aether, an AI creative studio, with dark-mode design, high-end animations (Framer Motion), and conversion-focused sections (hero, features, demo, pricing, testimonials). Whilst I think gemini is overall better at design, the model often struggles with syntax issues, tool calling and thinking for 2-3 times the amount of opus.

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro (2/9) prompt: Build a premium Vite + React landing page for Aether, an AI creative studio, with dark-mode design, high-end animations (Framer Motion), and conversion-focused sections (hero, features, demo, pricing, testimonials). Whilst I think gemini is overall better at design, the model often struggles with syntax issues, tool calling and thinking for 2-3 times the amount of opus.

Dev Ed

62,878 views • 7 months ago

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini Pro 3.1 (5/9) Opus absolutely COOKS gemini, by creating an overall better cohesive design, extra features like like dark mode, poper tabs for stock analysis, news, and it even created it's own svgs for the stock tickers whilst doing it FASTER than gemini. Opus: 12 mins 23 seconds Gemini: 18 mins 31 seconds (had to reprompt it 3 extra times to fix syntax errors) prompt: Build a high-end stock analysis dashboard using React + Vite + TypeScript, with a polished TradingView/Bloomberg-style UI, left sidebar of stock tickers, smooth transitions, and premium charts (candlesticks, indicators, comparisons). Use local dummy JSON data only (prices, financials, future points) with a time-simulation mode, rich stock detail tabs (overview, financials, valuation, technicals), and add 3–5 pro features like watchlists, compare mode, alerts, portfolio sandbox, or earnings calendar—architected so a real API can be swapped in later.

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini Pro 3.1 (5/9) Opus absolutely COOKS gemini, by creating an overall better cohesive design, extra features like like dark mode, poper tabs for stock analysis, news, and it even created it's own svgs for the stock tickers whilst doing it FASTER than gemini. Opus: 12 mins 23 seconds Gemini: 18 mins 31 seconds (had to reprompt it 3 extra times to fix syntax errors) prompt: Build a high-end stock analysis dashboard using React + Vite + TypeScript, with a polished TradingView/Bloomberg-style UI, left sidebar of stock tickers, smooth transitions, and premium charts (candlesticks, indicators, comparisons). Use local dummy JSON data only (prices, financials, future points) with a time-simulation mode, rich stock detail tabs (overview, financials, valuation, technicals), and add 3–5 pro features like watchlists, compare mode, alerts, portfolio sandbox, or earnings calendar—architected so a real API can be swapped in later.

Dev Ed

287,456 views • 6 months ago

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (High) (6/9) Testing out how well these models to with cloth physics simulation, and honestly both where pretty close here but my god I am shocked how good GPT 5.4 is with optimizing this scene whilst opus 4.6 felt quite janky and lower fps. GPT 5.4 also got the cutting working properly whilst Opus was just floating about. I do want to heavily stress the fact that making this prompt, Opus 4.6 cost the whole 100% of the session ($20 pro plan) + $3 in credits whilst GPT 5.4 only cost 10% of the usage. prompt: Build a premium Vite + React interactive cloth simulation of a cozy room curtain using real particle/constraint physics, with structural + shear springs, damping, collisions, and stable real-time deformation. Users should be able to drag the curtain, add wind, and cut constraints, while the experience stays polished, visually elegant, and numerically stable.

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (High) (6/9) Testing out how well these models to with cloth physics simulation, and honestly both where pretty close here but my god I am shocked how good GPT 5.4 is with optimizing this scene whilst opus 4.6 felt quite janky and lower fps. GPT 5.4 also got the cutting working properly whilst Opus was just floating about. I do want to heavily stress the fact that making this prompt, Opus 4.6 cost the whole 100% of the session ($20 pro plan) + $3 in credits whilst GPT 5.4 only cost 10% of the usage. prompt: Build a premium Vite + React interactive cloth simulation of a cozy room curtain using real particle/constraint physics, with structural + shear springs, damping, collisions, and stable real-time deformation. Users should be able to drag the curtain, add wind, and cut constraints, while the experience stays polished, visually elegant, and numerically stable.

Dev Ed

414,465 views • 6 months ago

Here is a game that looks like it was made with 2D sprites on a tilemap But it’s actually a three.js scene Also, no external assets. It’s all code and a bit of shader magic The player can switch between the pixel view and the 3D scene Made with Opus 5

Here is a game that looks like it was made with 2D sprites on a tilemap But it’s actually a three.js scene Also, no external assets. It’s all code and a bit of shader magic The player can switch between the pixel view and the 3D scene Made with Opus 5

Dilum Sanjaya

53,670 views • 1 month ago

2AM idea: “Can I make Medusa’s snakes follow the cursor in three.js?” 🤔 Naturally, I spent the next 3 hours building it Way more satisfying to interact with than I expected Code: Opus 5 3D assets: Tripo Link ↓

2AM idea: “Can I make Medusa’s snakes follow the cursor in three.js?” 🤔 Naturally, I spent the next 3 hours building it Way more satisfying to interact with than I expected Code: Opus 5 3D assets: Tripo Link ↓

Dilum Sanjaya

13,743 views • 28 days ago

i gave the exact same prompt to Opus 5 and Fable 5 and here's what came out Opus 5 dropped yesterday and my feed was instantly full of comparison posts but i wanted to check it myself so i gave it one task build 3d Flappy Bird first thing everyone was saying Opus is 2x cheaper than Fable BUT.. building the game on Max effort cost me 250k tokens and 1 hour on Opus and 130k on Fable but Fable did it in half the time Opus gave me volume control plus 3 separate graphics presets to choose from, Fable gave none of that in Opus the environment shifts dynamically as you play in Fable it's basically the same frame the whole run maybe a day/night change here and there graphics, animations, glow, all of it goes to Opus and now that limits jumped 50% for the near future while Fable went paid for me the call is obvious right now Opus same prompt start to finish zero changes to code or commands want it? i can send it over

i gave the exact same prompt to Opus 5 and Fable 5 and here's what came out Opus 5 dropped yesterday and my feed was instantly full of comparison posts but i wanted to check it myself so i gave it one task build 3d Flappy Bird first thing everyone was saying Opus is 2x cheaper than Fable BUT.. building the game on Max effort cost me 250k tokens and 1 hour on Opus and 130k on Fable but Fable did it in half the time Opus gave me volume control plus 3 separate graphics presets to choose from, Fable gave none of that in Opus the environment shifts dynamically as you play in Fable it's basically the same frame the whole run maybe a day/night change here and there graphics, animations, glow, all of it goes to Opus and now that limits jumped 50% for the near future while Fable went paid for me the call is obvious right now Opus same prompt start to finish zero changes to code or commands want it? i can send it over

savip.

45,764 views • 1 month ago

Ox Alpha vs Opus 5 i asked both models to build rocket engine using three.js ox-alpha is not even close to opus 5 performance and it took equal or more time for the output prompt used for both: "Create a 3d SpaceX raptor engine using three.js, use white theme background so the main object is clearly visible" both are one-shot outputs with no additional changes what do you think about Ox Alpha?

Ox Alpha vs Opus 5 i asked both models to build rocket engine using three.js ox-alpha is not even close to opus 5 performance and it took equal or more time for the output prompt used for both: "Create a 3d SpaceX raptor engine using three.js, use white theme background so the main object is clearly visible" both are one-shot outputs with no additional changes what do you think about Ox Alpha?

Tim Jayas

104,225 views • 28 days ago

OPUS 4.6 WAS NERFED DUE TO DEMAND BUT OPUS 4.5 DOES NOT SEEM TO BE HIT this guy ran the same test on both models. Opus 4.6 fails consistently but Opus 4.5 passes every time he switched back to Opus 4.5 on Claude Code and said "what a difference, feels like i got Opus back finally" he is now using this test as a "quantization canary" that runs it at the start of every session before doing real work. if it fails, the model is degraded. five Opus 4.6 windows in a row failed the untransparent nerfing is pushing people to cancel their Max plans if you've been feeling like Opus got dumber lately, you're not imagining it i'd suggest switching to Opus 4.5 to see the difference for yourself

OPUS 4.6 WAS NERFED DUE TO DEMAND BUT OPUS 4.5 DOES NOT SEEM TO BE HIT this guy ran the same test on both models. Opus 4.6 fails consistently but Opus 4.5 passes every time he switched back to Opus 4.5 on Claude Code and said "what a difference, feels like i got Opus back finally" he is now using this test as a "quantization canary" that runs it at the start of every session before doing real work. if it fails, the model is degraded. five Opus 4.6 windows in a row failed the untransparent nerfing is pushing people to cancel their Max plans if you've been feeling like Opus got dumber lately, you're not imagining it i'd suggest switching to Opus 4.5 to see the difference for yourself

Om Patel

696,175 views • 5 months ago

Testing the new Claude Opus 4.6 vs. Gemini 3 Pro on Sider’s Artifacts! 🚀 I love turning complex articles into "interactive reading" to boost my efficiency. With the new Claude Opus 4.6 out, I ran a head-to-head comparison. Here's the breakdown: 1/ Gemini 3 Pro: The "Gamified" Experience 🎮 The interface is incredibly clean and minimalist, but the real magic is the interactivity. It’s highly engaging and fun—honestly, it feels like playing a game. It turns passive reading into an active exploration where you actually enjoy clicking through the content. 2/ Claude Opus 4.6: The "High-Tech" Analyst 🧠 The visuals are dazzling—it has a super cool, futuristic vibe. But beyond the look, the breakdown is insanely detailed. It dissects complex concepts from multiple granular angles. It feels like examining the DNA of the article. The Verdict: Choose Gemini 3 Pro for a clean layout with a fun, game-like vibe. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 for "cooler" visuals and superior, microscopic content breakdown. Both are game-changers for "chewing" through difficult papers! 📖✨ Which style do you prefer?

Testing the new Claude Opus 4.6 vs. Gemini 3 Pro on Sider’s Artifacts! 🚀 I love turning complex articles into "interactive reading" to boost my efficiency. With the new Claude Opus 4.6 out, I ran a head-to-head comparison. Here's the breakdown: 1/ Gemini 3 Pro: The "Gamified" Experience 🎮 The interface is incredibly clean and minimalist, but the real magic is the interactivity. It’s highly engaging and fun—honestly, it feels like playing a game. It turns passive reading into an active exploration where you actually enjoy clicking through the content. 2/ Claude Opus 4.6: The "High-Tech" Analyst 🧠 The visuals are dazzling—it has a super cool, futuristic vibe. But beyond the look, the breakdown is insanely detailed. It dissects complex concepts from multiple granular angles. It feels like examining the DNA of the article. The Verdict: Choose Gemini 3 Pro for a clean layout with a fun, game-like vibe. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 for "cooler" visuals and superior, microscopic content breakdown. Both are game-changers for "chewing" through difficult papers! 📖✨ Which style do you prefer?

Ace

109,206 views • 7 months ago

🚨 CANCEL YOUR SaaS Subscriptions - Build With AI Use top models including - Opus 4.7 & Sonnet 4.6 - GPT 5.5 high - Gemini 3.1 Pro Build entire apps, backends, APIs and mobile apps all using ENGLISH - The agent also has a built in Q/A engineer BUILD END TO END APPS WITH AI

🚨 CANCEL YOUR SaaS Subscriptions - Build With AI Use top models including - Opus 4.7 & Sonnet 4.6 - GPT 5.5 high - Gemini 3.1 Pro Build entire apps, backends, APIs and mobile apps all using ENGLISH - The agent also has a built in Q/A engineer BUILD END TO END APPS WITH AI

Abacus.AI

3,299,141 views • 4 months ago

Crazy. Opus 5 outperformed Fable 5 on 3d modeling at 2/3 the price We tested Opus 5, Fable 5, and GPT 5.6 Sol on the same prompt: build an explorable Japanese suburban street in Three.js, full 3D, rendered like a hand-drawn anime background. All on Max effort. Opus 5 took the longest but delivered the most varied scenery: clean dark outlines, flat cel-shaded color bands, dense street details down to the vending machine signage. Fable paid more attention to details, and while GPT 5.6 Sol was 3-4x cheaper and the fastest, but the render shows it: sparse, washed out, barely styled. Opus 5: 1hr 21min · $26.7 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $35 GPT 5.6 Sol: 41min · $7.1

Crazy. Opus 5 outperformed Fable 5 on 3d modeling at 2/3 the price We tested Opus 5, Fable 5, and GPT 5.6 Sol on the same prompt: build an explorable Japanese suburban street in Three.js, full 3D, rendered like a hand-drawn anime background. All on Max effort. Opus 5 took the longest but delivered the most varied scenery: clean dark outlines, flat cel-shaded color bands, dense street details down to the vending machine signage. Fable paid more attention to details, and while GPT 5.6 Sol was 3-4x cheaper and the fastest, but the render shows it: sparse, washed out, barely styled. Opus 5: 1hr 21min · $26.7 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $35 GPT 5.6 Sol: 41min · $7.1

GMI Cloud

54,140 views • 1 month ago

I've solved this. timing: - agent time: 2m54s (API Streaming + Tool Time = Agent Time) - total time: 5m12s (includes TTFT/Compactions) - able to achieve these times because it can 1 shot almost all steps until it reaches step 30. agent cost: - $2.0516 took 35 dev hours: - building/testing/improving tools - identifying waste - correcting behaviors notes: - not a script using a predetermined path - no tools use predetermined paths to navigate the challenge - no overfit instructions - /start-challenge will be in the comments - does not exploit session storage to get codes models tested: - gemini 3 flash - opus 4.5 - opus 4.6 - codex 5.3 - gpt-oss-120b - kimi k2.5 - grok 4.1 final stack: - opus-4.6 - claude agent sdk & claude code - gemini-3-flash Brett Adcock are you still taking submissions?

I've solved this. timing: - agent time: 2m54s (API Streaming + Tool Time = Agent Time) - total time: 5m12s (includes TTFT/Compactions) - able to achieve these times because it can 1 shot almost all steps until it reaches step 30. agent cost: - $2.0516 took 35 dev hours: - building/testing/improving tools - identifying waste - correcting behaviors notes: - not a script using a predetermined path - no tools use predetermined paths to navigate the challenge - no overfit instructions - /start-challenge will be in the comments - does not exploit session storage to get codes models tested: - gemini 3 flash - opus 4.5 - opus 4.6 - codex 5.3 - gpt-oss-120b - kimi k2.5 - grok 4.1 final stack: - opus-4.6 - claude agent sdk & claude code - gemini-3-flash Brett Adcock are you still taking submissions?

brian

111,829 views • 7 months ago

Clawdbot creator Peter Steinberger 🦞 says Claude Opus is his favorite model, but OpenAI Codex is the best for coding: "OpenAI is very reliable. For coding, I prefer Codex because it can navigate large codebases. You can prompt and have 95% certainty that it actually works. With Claude Code you need more tricks to get the same." "But character wise, [Opus] behaves so good in a Discord it kind of feels like a human. I've only really experienced that with Opus."

Clawdbot creator Peter Steinberger 🦞 says Claude Opus is his favorite model, but OpenAI Codex is the best for coding: "OpenAI is very reliable. For coding, I prefer Codex because it can navigate large codebases. You can prompt and have 95% certainty that it actually works. With Claude Code you need more tricks to get the same." "But character wise, [Opus] behaves so good in a Discord it kind of feels like a human. I've only really experienced that with Opus."

TBPN

443,150 views • 7 months ago

I tried Opus 4.6 Max in Cursor with a much more detailed prompt and the results are incredible Functional inventory, health, tools, recipes, and more The only downside is how expensive the model is and it also had to fix some bugs, but it's a pretty strong model overall

I tried Opus 4.6 Max in Cursor with a much more detailed prompt and the results are incredible Functional inventory, health, tools, recipes, and more The only downside is how expensive the model is and it also had to fix some bugs, but it's a pretty strong model overall

Angel 🌼

70,710 views • 7 months ago

For developers, Gemini 3 Pro offers unparalleled results across every major AI benchmark compared to Gemini 2.5 Pro. Here three ways Gemini 3 Pro can improve your workflow today: 1. Gemini 3 Pro fits right into existing production agent and coding workflows. It is also integrated into development environment experiences across the ecosystem of developer products like Google AI Studio, Gemini CLI, and Android Studio. 2. We introduced Google Google Antigravity, a new agentic development platform that reimagines how the model and IDE work together. It enables developers to manage agents to work at a higher, task-oriented level collaborating with agents while they build. 3. We’ve built Google AI Studio to be your fastest path from a prompt to an AI-native app. Build mode lets you add AI capabilities faster than ever, automatically wiring up the right models and APIs, while features like annotations enable fast and intuitive iteration. Whether you’re building a one-shot prompt game or an interactive landing page from unstructured voice notes, you can bring any idea to life with Gemini 3.

For developers, Gemini 3 Pro offers unparalleled results across every major AI benchmark compared to Gemini 2.5 Pro. Here three ways Gemini 3 Pro can improve your workflow today: 1. Gemini 3 Pro fits right into existing production agent and coding workflows. It is also integrated into development environment experiences across the ecosystem of developer products like Google AI Studio, Gemini CLI, and Android Studio. 2. We introduced Google Google Antigravity, a new agentic development platform that reimagines how the model and IDE work together. It enables developers to manage agents to work at a higher, task-oriented level collaborating with agents while they build. 3. We’ve built Google AI Studio to be your fastest path from a prompt to an AI-native app. Build mode lets you add AI capabilities faster than ever, automatically wiring up the right models and APIs, while features like annotations enable fast and intuitive iteration. Whether you’re building a one-shot prompt game or an interactive landing page from unstructured voice notes, you can bring any idea to life with Gemini 3.

Google AI

136,648 views • 10 months ago

Tried recreating Fall Guys using the exact same prompt with Claude Opus 5.0 (Claude Code) and Kimi K3 (Kimi CLI). Kimi K3 nailed the gameplay out of the box. Physics, movement, and the overall feel were surprisingly solid Opus 5.0 had a shinier UI, but movement was broken, it kept adding unnecessary visual effects, lagged during gameplay, and spent most of its time reiterating instead of converging Runtime and cost : - Kimi K3: ~9 min, ~$4.4 - Opus 5.0: ~17 min (still iterating), ~$13+ That's roughly 2× the time and 3× the cost, yet Kimi produced the more playable result with the exact same prompt.

Tried recreating Fall Guys using the exact same prompt with Claude Opus 5.0 (Claude Code) and Kimi K3 (Kimi CLI). Kimi K3 nailed the gameplay out of the box. Physics, movement, and the overall feel were surprisingly solid Opus 5.0 had a shinier UI, but movement was broken, it kept adding unnecessary visual effects, lagged during gameplay, and spent most of its time reiterating instead of converging Runtime and cost : - Kimi K3: ~9 min, ~$4.4 - Opus 5.0: ~17 min (still iterating), ~$13+ That's roughly 2× the time and 3× the cost, yet Kimi produced the more playable result with the exact same prompt.

aditya

318,628 views • 1 month ago

Over the weekend, I added multiplayer "paint ball" dogfight to Tiny Skies, so players can fly around pelting each other with colourful paint balls, just for fun. I tried meshy and tripo to generate some 3D models for the game and the mesh vertices count are really high and lags the game a lot (probably because my game is a globe with thousands of objects - albeit mostly instanced). To my surprise, I found Gemini 3.1 Pro to be really quite good at generating good looking 3D models that are low in poly count. It generated 3D models at a much higher quality than Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6 and GPT 5.4. You can see the upgraded biplane models and some objects in the video below. #vibejam

Over the weekend, I added multiplayer "paint ball" dogfight to Tiny Skies, so players can fly around pelting each other with colourful paint balls, just for fun. I tried meshy and tripo to generate some 3D models for the game and the mesh vertices count are really high and lags the game a lot (probably because my game is a globe with thousands of objects - albeit mostly instanced). To my surprise, I found Gemini 3.1 Pro to be really quite good at generating good looking 3D models that are low in poly count. It generated 3D models at a much higher quality than Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6 and GPT 5.4. You can see the upgraded biplane models and some objects in the video below. #vibejam

Danny Limanseta

36,419 views • 5 months ago

$I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)$

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)

Ian Nuttall

195,173 views • 1 year ago