A recent test evaluated three coding agents—pi, Codex, and Claude Code—using the same local LLM on a 6GB GPU to assess their performance on coding tasks. The pi agent demonstrated the best results, completing all tasks with the fastest bug-fixing times and minimal errors, even after its prompt was trimmed. Codex also completed all tasks but encountered more tool-argument errors and slower execution times. Claude Code struggled significantly, failing multiple tasks and sometimes falsely reporting completion without producing any output, particularly when using the Qwen model. AI
IMPACT Highlights how agent prompt complexity and model choice significantly impact performance on local hardware, influencing tool selection for developers.
RANK_REASON The item compares the performance of different AI agents (tools) when integrated with a local LLM, focusing on practical application and limitations.
Read on dev.to — Claude Code tag →
- Claude Code
- Codex
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- llama.cpp
- Ollama
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
- pi
- RTX 3060 Laptop
- ubuntu
- Unsloth
- Windows Subsystem for Linux
AI-generated summary · Google Gemini · from 1 sources. How we write summaries →