Đã đăng vào khoảng 7 giờ trước 10 phút đọc

Cursor vs Claude Code vs Codex: Which Is Better for Vibe Coding in 2026?

Vibe coding — the practice of leaning on an LLM to generate, iterate and ship code based mostly on prompts and runtime experiments rather than line-by-line human engineering — has moved from curiosities and demos into mainstream developer workflows. Over the past 18 months a handful of purpose-built tools have raced to own that experience: Cursor (an AI-native IDE and agent platform), Anthropic’s Claude Code (a terminal-first, agentic coding assistant), and OpenAI’s modern Codex incarnations (now agentic and integrated into Copilot and cloud CLIs). Each takes a different product and safety stance, and each is being measured not just on what it can generate, but on whether it sustains real projects when humans stop being the primary typists and become the “directors of vibes.”

What Is Vibe Coding?

The New Paradigm in AI-Assisted Development

“Vibe coding” is a recently popularized term referring to an AI-dependent programming approach, where the developer relies primarily on natural-language prompts and conversational AI rather than manually writing every line of code. This concept emerged as a notable trend in early 2025 and reflects a shift from traditional keyboard-driven programming to interactive, prompt-driven code generation.

In vibe coding:

Developers describe high-level goals (“build a REST API in Go with JWT auth”).
The AI generates code iteratively in response.
Manual review of every line is often de-emphasized (though best practices still recommend it).
Iterative refinement focuses on prompting rather than typing.

Academics and practitioners note both excitement and caution around this paradigm — it can dramatically boost productivity but may also produce security or reproducibility concerns if unchecked.

Why timing matters

Two trends converged to turbocharge vibe coding: (1) LLMs and agentic models gained long-context and repository awareness, enabling them to propose and patch multi-file features; and (2) tooling shifted from “chat windows” to integrated agents that can edit files, run tests and open pull requests directly from developer environments. These platform changes have turned vibe coding from a fun demo into a viable prototyping and — sometimes — production approach.

How do Cursor, Claude Code and Codex differ in approach to vibe coding?

Cursor: an AI-native IDE with agent modes

Cursor started as an editor built around completion and in-editor assistants; recent product releases have pushed the product into multi-agent workflows and its own coding model (Composer). Cursor’s stated design goal is to put agentic power directly inside the IDE while preserving familiar editor affordances — tab completions, quick edits, and optional autonomy via Agent Mode. The company has been aggressively funded and productized: Cursor announced a major Composer/Agent Mode release in October 2025 and a large Series D in November 2025.

What Cursor gives you in practice

Deep editor integration (diffs, quick fixes, in-place agent suggestions).
Multi-agent orchestration (run several agents in parallel to explore design alternatives).
An option to pick or bring your own model (Composer vs third-party models).

Claude Code: terminal-first, action-capable agent

Anthropic positioned Claude Code as a terminal-native agent that “meets developers where they already work.” Claude Code runs in the CLI, can read and edit a repo, run commands, make commits and integrate with enterprise systems via plugins and the Claude API. The product was launched as a CLI and later expanded to web and mobile interfaces; Anthropic emphasizes direct actionability and enterprise controls as core differentiators.

What Claude Code gives you in practice

Terminal workflow: claude commands that can inspect and modify your repo.
Built-in integrations (MCP/“Cowork” plugins) for Google Drive, Slack, Jira, etc., letting agents act across org systems.
Heavy emphasis on safety/composability and enterprise scalability.

Codex (OpenAI): from completion engine to agentic coding platform

OpenAI’s Codex story is one of evolution. The original Codex models (the 2021 family) were used in early pair-programming tools and then deprecated as standalone models in favor of newer chat/agent models. In 2025 OpenAI reintroduced Codex as an agentic offering (GPT-5-Codex and related “Codex” product modes) integrated across ChatGPT, Codex CLI and GitHub Copilot previews — effectively making Codex an agent platform rather than a simple completion model. OpenAI positions Codex to power long-running tasks and to run in cloud sandboxes preloaded with repos.

What Codex gives you in practice

Deep integration with Copilot and VS Code via Copilot Pro/Pro+ and a Codex web/CLI experience.
Cloud sandboxing: Codex can run tasks end-to-end inside isolated environments.
Rapid iteration on model families (GPT-5 Codex, Codex-mini, Codex-Max variants).

Why Compare Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex?

IDE Integration vs Terminal Power

Cursor excels as a developer-centric IDE, bringing AI suggestions directly into the editing workflow. Real-time suggestions, inline refactors, and visual diff tools make it a favorite for hands-on coding sessions.
Claude Code breaks from traditional IDE constraints — it operates chiefly via terminal commands, making developers articulate tasks in comprehensive natural language. This approach suits developers who think in workflows rather than UI interactions.
Codex is typically accessed via ChatGPT’s interface or integrated into other coding environments like Copilot or custom CLI setups, offering a hybrid experience between interactive suggestions and agentic autonomy.

Verdict: For developers whose workflows revolve around traditional IDE usage, Cursor often feels more natural. Claude Code appeals to those who favor command-driven automation, while Codex bridges both models.

These three tools represent different philosophies in AI coding assistance:

Tool	Primary Interface	Use Case	Strength
Cursor	Full IDE	Visual interactive development	IDE-centric workflows
Claude Code	Terminal/CLI	Conversational terminal workflows	Multi-step reasoning & autonomy
OpenAI Codex	API + Extensions+cli	Deep code generation	Broad language comprehension

Each targets different developer preferences — from GUI-driven editing to terminal-native, deeply conversational code generation — but all are used in practice for vibe coding.

How Do Pricing Models Compare Across These Tools?

Pricing is critical: developers and teams must balance cost with productivity improvements. Developers can use CometAPI's API in cursor, claude code, and codex. The discounts it offers allow developers to save costs; they only need to replace the CometAPI API key during verification to implement a proxy(Claude Code Installation and Usage Guide and Codex Usage Guide).

Claude Code Pricing

Claude Code pricing is tied to the broader Anthropic Claude subscription tiers:

Pro Plan (~$17–20/month) — entry level with moderate usage and message limits.
Max 5x (~$100/month) — higher usage cap.
Max 20x (~$200/month) — extensive messaging and context capacity.

Higher tiers support larger contexts and more frequent interactions.

Cursor Pricing

Cursor provides a more traditional SaaS tier structure:

Free/Hobby — entry level with limited completions.
Pro (~$20/month) — enhanced usage and background agents.
Pro+ (~$60/month) — more usage, model options.
Ultra (~$200/month) — high-usage and priority access.

Cursor’s tiers scale with model usage and frequency of requests.

OpenAI Codex Pricing

Codex itself is integrated into OpenAI’s API platform. Pricing is typically tied to:

Model selection (e.g., GPT-5 Codex variants).
Token usage.

Users on ChatGPT Plus (or API credits) can access Codex models, effectively weighting cost against token consumption rather than flat subscription.

Pricing Summary Table

Tool	Free Tier	Entry	Mid	Premium
Claude Code	❌	~$20	~$100	~$200
Cursor	✔︎	~$20	~$60	~$200
Codex	Via API credits	Depends on token usage	Depends on usage	Enterprise API

Feature Comparisons — What Makes Each Unique?

Long-context capability is table stakes now

Vibe coding often means asking an agent to add a new feature spanning many files or refactor legacy code. That requires long context (reading whole repos or many files) and stateful agents.

Cursor implements session-based context with automatic summarization for long conversations, providing a lightweight but fluid experience.
Claude Code has pioneered larger token context windows (up to 200K tokens or more with new plans), enabling entire codebases to be processed in a single session.
Codex relies on API-level token limits and can handle structured requests effectively but does not synchronize a persistent state like an IDE session.

Codex and Cursor/Composer advertise models and architectures built to handle long, long-running tasks with repository context. OpenAI’s Codex agent approach specifically mentions sandboxed runs on repos; Cursor’s Composer + multi-agent flow is designed for parallel multi-file edits.

Code Quality and Productivity

According to a recent analyst study:

Metric	Claude Code	Codex	Cursor
First-Try Success Rate	Highest	High	Moderate*
Iterations to Correct Solution	1–2	2–3	2–4
Code Quality & Modularity	Excellent	Very Good	Good
Typical Productivity Impact	High	High	Moderate to High

*Cursor is model-dependent, matching Codex or Claude when those engines are used

Many developers have reported that Claude Code’s outputs often require fewer rewrites than other tools, supporting the idea that its planning capabilities yield cleaner, modular code.

However, Codex has historically led on hard algorithmic tasks and benchmarks such as HumanEval, especially when powered by GPT-5 engines, which reach near-perfect scores on coding challenges.

Correctness and testing: All three platforms encourage running tests and CI as a check on generated changes. The practical difference is UI and workflow: Cursor surfaces test failures inside the editor and can run multiple candidate fixes; Claude Code will run tests in terminal sessions and propose commits; Codex sandboxes can autonomously run suites and open PRs. None of the tools remove the need for human code review when correctness, safety and long-term maintainability matter.

H3: Language & Framework Support

All three tools support most modern languages (Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Rust, etc.), but there are differences:

Codex exhibits broad multi-language support and deep comprehension due to its extensive training corpus.
Claude Code’s reasoning strength can help with structured, complex refactors across languages.
Cursor offers convenience in visual edits across diverse languages inside an IDE.

Compiled Features Table

Capability	Cursor	Claude Code	Codex
Context Size	Medium	Very Large	Token-limited
IDE Integration	✔︎	Partial	Via Extensions
CLI Support	Partial	✔︎	✔︎
Multi-file Refactor	✔︎	✔︎	Depends on integration
Agentic Task Execution	Background Agents	Native	Via API
Real-time Collaboration	Growing	Experiment	API dependent

Benchmark Outcomes and Performance Metrics

Beyond subjective feedback, real comparisons show nuanced differences:

Token Efficiency

One study found Claude Code uses significantly fewer tokens to achieve comparable output compared to Cursor — translating to lower cost and faster performance for large tasks.

Context Window and Model Capacity

Claude Code (Opus / Sonnet models) can handle extremely long contexts (100k+ tokens), making it ideal for large repositories.
Codex (GPT-5) typically uses up to 128k tokens, still robust but lower than Claude.
Cursor’s performance depends on the model selected, which can scale accordingly.

Quality vs Speed

Where Claude Code prefers precision and planning, Codex prioritizes raw model intelligence, and Cursor optimizes developer velocity.

Operational Comparison — How They Work in Practice

Cursor Operational Workflow

Cursor acts as a full IDE:

Index Codebase — Cursor scans project files.
Prompt Interaction — You select code and prompt changes.
AI Proposed Edits — Modifications show directly inside the editor.
Commit & Review — Accept or adjust changes.

Developers benefit from visual diff views and integrated file navigation.

Inside Cursor you can invoke Agent Mode or Composer. A typical in-editor workflow looks like:

# In the editor command palette:
/agent "Refactor authentication to use token-based middleware, update tests, and provide a migration script."
# Cursor will propose edits, show diffs inline, and optionally run tests in a local task runner.

Cursor’s multi-agent Composer can spawn several candidate implementations in parallel and present diffs for human selection.

Claude Code Operational Flow

Claude Code is often:

Open a terminal.
Use commands like claude code generate ….
Review code outputs.
Integrate changes via CLI tools (e.g., Git, build tools).

It emphasizes planner-style, agentic task execution — excellent for complex, multi-step refactors.

Run in your project root after installing the CLI (official docs):

# quickstart (install and run)
# see Anthropic docs: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview
claude
# Example prompt inside the tool:
# "Add a feature 'export CSV' to src/services/user_export.py. Create tests and a CLI flag --export-csv. Run tests, patch failures, and open a commit."

Anthropic documents the claude CLI and recommends iterative prompts with tests and commit generation; the CLI experience is optimized for workers who live in terminals.

Codex Operational Details

Codex is used via:

Editor integrations.
API calls.
Programmatic generation.

This command sends a single task to Codex and returns generated code. Developers then inspect, test, and iterate.

OpenAI’s Codex modes expose agentic features; a developer might use a high-level CLI or an API call, Example pseudo-workflow using the API:

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(api_key="YOUR_KEY")

prompt = """
Write a Python Flask API with user authentication and CRUD endpoints.
"""

response = client.codex.create(
    model="gpt-5-codex",
    prompt=prompt,
    max_tokens=800
)

print(response.text)

Codex running sandboxed tasks and proposing PRs in integrated UIs.

# Pseudo CLI call (Codex CLI / sandbox)
codex run --repo . --task "Implement bulk import for products; create tests and a PR"

Which Tool Is Best for Different Use Cases?

Here’s a practical breakdown of which tool shines in what situations:

Large-Scale Engineering Projects

Claude Code due to autonomous planning, long context handling, and higher first-try success.
Codex also strong, especially with GPT-5’s broad language support.
Runner-up: Cursor when integrated with top models.

Rapid Prototyping & IDE Flow

Cursor — seamless inline suggestions and visual developer feedback.
Combined use: Cursor + Codex for final polishing, or Cursor + Claude Code for deeper logic tasks.

Automation and Build Pipelines

Claude Code and Codex CLI excel in scripting builds, automating refactors, and generating PRs.
Cursor’s strength remains interactive development.

Final Verdict: Which Is Best for Vibe Coding?

There’s no single universal winner. Instead, your choice depends on:

Developer Priority	Best Fit
Code Quality, Accuracy	Claude Code
Raw Model Power	Codex (GPT-5)
Developer Experience	Cursor
Automation & CI/CD Tasks	Claude Code / Codex CLI
Hybrid Workflows	Cursor with multiple models

Best practices increasingly point toward blended workflows: use Cursor for in-editor velocity, Claude Code for planning and complex tasks, and Codex where model depth and benchmark performance matter most.

Conclusion

In 2026, vibe coding has matured beyond hype into a mainstream development paradigm. Tools like Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex are reshaping how engineers write, maintain, and think about software. Each has compelling strengths and distinct trade-offs — but all three are powerful allies when wielded with thoughtful prompts, disciplined review, and an eye toward maintainability and security.

As AI continues to integrate into coding workflows, the best choice is not about picking a single tool but assembling the right combo to match your needs and company workflows.

cometapi