Codex (OpenAI)
Free tier available
- API -- gpt-6.1-sol (2026-09-29)$2/$10/per 1M tokens; cached input $0.10 (GPT-6 Sol: $0.20)
- Free$0
- Go$8/mo
Our pickA
8.3/10Codex (OpenAI)
GPT-6.1 Sol (added 2026-09-29 for Plus and up, rolling out from Pro; Ultrafast variant coming) + GPT-6 Sol + GPT-6 Luna (2026-09-22; Luna for Free/Go in the desktop app) + GPT-6 Astra (Ultrafast tier on Pro 500/Enterprise) alongside GPT-5.6 Sol / Terra / Luna (GA 2026-07-09; Terra default on Free/Go). GPT-5.5 remains selectable as previous-gen; GPT-5.4 retired from Codex 2026-08-31; GPT-5.2-Codex retired 2026-07-23; gpt-5.3-codex leaves the API 2027-04-01
VS
B
7.8/10Lovable
Claude (Anthropic) for the builder agent; AI features inside generated apps default to Gemini 3.7 Flash with Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 and Gemini options (Sept 2026)
Codex (OpenAI) vs Lovable
Tier-list head-to-head. Codex (OpenAI) takes the A-tier slot — here's the breakdown.
Last reviewed October 15, 2026· sweep-fresh
Spec sheet
At a glance
| Codex (OpenAI) | Lovable | |
|---|---|---|
| Tier | A-tierwin | B-tier |
| Overall score | 8.3 / 10win | 7.8 / 10 |
| Powered by | GPT-6.1 Sol (added 2026-09-29 for Plus and up, rolling out from Pro; Ultrafast variant coming) + GPT-6 Sol + GPT-6 Luna (2026-09-22; Luna for Free/Go in the desktop app) + GPT-6 Astra (Ultrafast tier on Pro 500/Enterprise) alongside GPT-5.6 Sol / Terra / Luna (GA 2026-07-09; Terra default on Free/Go). GPT-5.5 remains selectable as previous-gen; GPT-5.4 retired from Codex 2026-08-31; GPT-5.2-Codex retired 2026-07-23; gpt-5.3-codex leaves the API 2027-04-01 | Claude (Anthropic) for the builder agent; AI features inside generated apps default to Gemini 3.7 Flash with Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 and Gemini options (Sept 2026) |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Starting price | $2/$10 | $0 |
| Best for | Developers already paying for ChatGPT Plus who want a coding agent at no extra cost. | Non-technical founders who need an MVP fast, or designers who want to turn mockups into working apps withou… |
| Last reviewed | 2026-10-12 | 2026-10-15 |
Head-to-head
Score showdown
Rated 1-10 on the same rubric across all 130 tools we cover.
Ease of use+1.5 Lovable
Codex (OpenAI)
8.0
Lovable
9.5
Output quality+1.5 Codex (OpenAI)
Codex (OpenAI)
8.0
Lovable
6.5
Value+0.5 Codex (OpenAI)
Codex (OpenAI)
8.0
Lovable
7.5
Features+1.5 Codex (OpenAI)
Codex (OpenAI)
9.0
Lovable
7.5
Overall+0.5 Codex (OpenAI)
Codex (OpenAI)
8.3
Lovable
7.8
What you'll pay
Pricing snapshot
Look past the headline number -- entry-tier limits drive most cost surprises.
Lovable
Free tier available
- Free$0
- Starter$20/mo
- Launch$50/mo
Benchmark Head-to-Head
GPT-5.2-Codex (HISTORICAL -- this model was RETIRED 2026-07-23; scores retained for trend context only). GPT-6 Sol and Luna joined Codex 2026-09-22: OpenAI reports DeepSWE v1.1 68.8% (Sol, max effort) and 66.6% (Luna, max) -- first-party, third-party verification pending; see Known Issues benchmarks — Lovable has no published benchmarks
| Benchmark | Description | Score |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench | Real GitHub issue fixing | 72% |
| HumanEval | Python code generation | 95% |
The decision
Which should you pick?
Use-case anchors and category strengths, side by side.
Pick Codex (OpenAI)if…
A
8.3/10- ✓Higher output quality (8.0 vs 6.5) where polish matters more than speed
- ✓More feature surface area for power users who'll use the depth
- ✓Developers already paying for ChatGPT Plus who want a coding agent at no extra cost.
- ✓Especially good for parallel task execution -- assign multiple bug fixes or feature branches and let Codex work them simultaneously.
Developers already paying for ChatGPT Plus who want a coding agent at no extra cost. Especially good for parallel task execution -- assign multiple bug fixes or feature branches and let Codex work them simultaneously.
Visit Codex (OpenAI)Pick Lovableif…
B
7.8/10- ✓Easier to learn and use day-to-day -- friendlier onboarding curve
- ✓Non-technical founders who need an MVP fast, or designers who want to turn mockups into working apps without learning to code.
- ✓Also great for rapid prototyping even if you do know how to code.
Non-technical founders who need an MVP fast, or designers who want to turn mockups into working apps without learning to code. Also great for rapid prototyping even if you do know how to code.
Visit LovableBottom line
The verdict
Codex (OpenAI) edges out Lovable by 0.5 points (8.3 vs 7.8) -- a A-tier vs B-tier split that's narrow but real. Not a blowout; both belong on a shortlist. The score gap shows up most clearly in the categories that matter for Codex (OpenAI)'s strengths, so if those categories are your priority, the lead translates.
Pricing-wise, both tools have a free tier (Codex (OpenAI) starts $2/$10, Lovable starts $0), so you can test either without committing. Compare what each free tier actually unlocks -- usage caps, model access, and feature gates differ a lot more than the headline price suggests, especially as both vendors have tightened limits in 2026.
By use case: pick Codex (OpenAI) when developers already paying for chatgpt plus who want a coding agent at no extra cost. Pick Lovable when non-technical founders who need an mvp fast, or designers who want to turn mockups into working apps without learning to code. The two tools aren't fighting for the same person -- they're aiming at adjacent jobs that occasionally overlap. If you're squarely in Codex (OpenAI)'s lane, the tier-list ranking and the use-case fit point the same direction; if you're in Lovable's lane, the score gap matters less than the fit.
Bottom line: Codex (OpenAI) is the safer default for most readers, but Lovable is competitive enough that the tie-breaker is your specific workload, not the spec sheet.
Keep digging
Compare more & explore
Full Codex (OpenAI) review
Tier A · 8.3/10
Full Lovable review
Tier B · 7.8/10
Codex (OpenAI) alternatives
Other tools in this lane
Lovable alternatives
Other tools in this lane
Built from our daily AI-tool sweep, last touched October 15, 2026. Honest tier-list reviews — no affiliate-link pieces disguised as advice. See the rubric or how we review.