Choose a coding client by where the work will run, which tools it can actually call and what evidence you can inspect. A brand comparison is less useful than a small reproducible task in your own development environment.

Decide where execution happens

A browser conversation can help refine an app brief. A local coding environment can inspect files and invoke local commands when configured and authorized. Those are different execution paths. A model knowing Swift does not give it access to your Mac's Xcode installation.

Choose by execution needs
  1. 1Need local build?
  2. 2Check client access
  3. 3Try identical small task
  4. 4Compare actual evidence

For local iOS work, first confirm that the client can see the intended project and that you understand how changes and command results are displayed. Then test one read-only review. Do not begin by letting several clients edit the same checkout.

What the project records actually say

Client Available project evidence Boundary
Claude Code A bounded text-repair check Not a complete app-generation benchmark
Codex Local setup instructions No same-brief comparison is presented in this lesson
Gemini CLI Extension validation and stdio connection record Model-driven task remains a separate check
Muse Code Tool discovery and Stop hook with echo provider Not proof of model repair or observer behavior
Antigravity and Xcode agents Topics requested for later comparison Not tested in this lesson

These rows are intentionally not a ranking. Read the client setup guide and the Muse connection walkthrough for the exact scope of the available records. A checkmark beside “connected” should never be read as “best at building apps.”

Run a fair trial

Use a disposable branch and a small synthetic feature. Keep the brief, starting commit, toolchain, acceptance criteria and retry limit constant. Record the client and model versions, elapsed time, tool failures, final diff and test outcomes. If a client cannot run a required command, record that limitation rather than substituting a different acceptance test.

Inspect this project without editing it.
Identify the app target and existing test command.
Explain one small change to the empty state.
State what you can verify here and what you cannot.

This first prompt tests whether the client identifies real project context. Follow it with the same small implementation task only after the inspection is accurate.

Keep cost evidence honest

A subscription price is not the cost of a run. Retries, model choice, account limits and included usage make casual comparisons misleading. Record whatever usage information the client actually exposes and identify missing measurements. This article has no measured per-run cost table because that paired experiment has not been performed.

Choose a starting point

Use the client you can already operate reliably, connect one tool path, and keep the task small. Switch because of an observed constraint—such as unavailable local execution or poor failure reporting—not because an untested comparison claims a universal winner. The later same-app lessons must earn their conclusions through comparable runs.

What to do next

Next: Your first hour: install Xcode, run the simulator, build the template app without AI