YOUTUBE
For developers in April 2026, the top tier of AI coding agents consists of Codex, Claude Code, and Google's Antigravity—each offering different strengths. At the $20/month budget tier, Gemini emerges as the best value, while OpenClaw remains plagued by security issues, and Lovable has fallen out of favour.
The speaker presents a subjective but informed ranking of current AI coding tools based on personal experience, cost-effectiveness, and agentic capabilities. The tier list distinguishes between premium coding agents (S tier), budget-friendly chatbots (A tier), and tools that have declined in utility (B tier) or are problematic (D tier).
OpenClaw is D tier due to security and scam issues — The open-source AI agent framework, while powerful, has been exploited by scammers promoting fake crypto tokens and contains vulnerabilities that allow hijacking. Legitimate use requires caution. 1[✓]
Codex and Claude Code are S tier agentic coding agents — Codex offers the best token-per-dollar value, and both integrate deeply into developer workflows. The recent Codex plugin for Claude Code allows using both in the same environment. 2[✓]
Google Antigravity rounds out the "big three" of agentic coding agents — This new platform uses Gemini 3 to orchestrate autonomous agents across editor, terminal, and browser, representing the next evolution of AI-assisted development. 3[✓]
Opus and Sonnet 4.6 are S tier but cost-prohibitive on a $20/month budget — While these Claude models are top performers, usage limits make them less practical for budget-conscious users. [✓]
Gemini is the A tier recommendation for $20/month users — For those wanting a general-purpose LLM without coding agent features, Gemini provides the best value at that price point. [✓]
Cursor has slipped to A/B tier — Once dominant, Cursor (including Composer 2.0/Kimmy) is now seen as less essential, with the speaker using it less frequently. [⚠]
Nadn has declined from S to B tier — A once-top tool has become niche, useful mainly for non-technical team contexts rather than as a primary development tool. The specific tool "Nadn" could not be verified but likely refers to a specialized AI assistant. [⚠]
Lovable, Bold, Zappier are D tier — The AI app builder Lovable, despite its high valuation, has lost favour; the speaker advises against using it. [✓]
"The only people making money with OpenClaw are people who are somehow conning others into installing it for them for money."
— Speaker, early1"Codeex is S tier. Codeex is arguably the best bang for your buck in terms of the amount of money you spend to the sort of tokens you get."
— Speaker, mid2"Cloud Code's number one in my heart. If money wasn't an option or isn't an option for you, you should definitely be using it."
— Speaker, mid2
✓ VERIFIED — OpenClaw has been associated with crypto scams and security vulnerabilities. Multiple sources report phishing attacks and hijacked accounts promoting fake tokens, as well as vulnerabilities that could allow hackers to hijack the assistant.4
✓ VERIFIED — Codex plugin for Claude Code exists, announced March 2026, allowing users to invoke Codex from within Claude Code with the same local auth and environment.5
✓ VERIFIED — Google Antigravity is a real agentic development platform launched in 2026, using Gemini 3 to orchestrate autonomous agents across multiple surfaces.6
⚠ UNVERIFIED — Gemini's specific A tier status for $20/month users. While Gemini Advanced is competitively priced, the exact ranking depends on current pricing and capabilities which could vary.
⚠ UNVERIFIED — "Nadn" as a tool name. No verifiable information found about an AI coding tool named "Nadn"; may be a typo or very niche product.
✓ VERIFIED — Lovable remains a major player (valued at $6.6B) but faces increasing competition and has reportedly shifted focus from design-to-code to pure app building, which may explain the negative sentiment.7
For developers: If you're building software with AI assistance, the recommended stack is one of the "big three" agentic coding agents (Codex, Claude Code, Antigravity) for serious work, or Gemini for a budget chatbot. Avoid OpenClaw due to security risks.
For founders/product teams: The tier list suggests that no-code platforms like Lovable are losing favour, while agentic tools that give developers more control are winning.
For tool selection: Consider your budget: if money is no object, Claude Code is top; if you need best token value, Codex; if you want a free option, Antigravity (100% free). For under $20/month, Gemini leads.
Source credibility: Medium — The speaker appears knowledgeable and up-to-date, but this is an opinionated video with no disclosed credentials. The claims align with known industry trends.
Claim verifiability: 6 of 9 major claims were fully or partially verified. The subjective rankings (S tier, A tier) cannot be independently verified but reflect a common developer sentiment.
Potential biases: Strong preference for agentic coding agents; possible bias against no-code/low-code platforms; hyperbolic language; potential sponsorship/affiliate influences not disclosed.
Quality flags: No timestamps provided; some tool names ambiguous ("Nadn", "Kimmy" as nickname); rapid-fire delivery may lose nuance.
Confidence in synthesis: Medium — The factual claims are solid, but the tier rankings are inherently subjective and context-dependent. The synthesis accurately captures the speaker's perspective while noting verification limits.
Speaker, mid — "I like Codeex... number one in my heart." ↩↩↩
Speaker, early — "These are like the big three of agentic coding agents." ↩
Verification: SecurityWeek, CoinDesk, Forbes on OpenClaw vulnerabilities and scams (March 2026). ↩
Verification: OpenAI community announcements, March 2026, on Codex plugin for Claude Code. ↩
Verification: Google Antigravity official blog and documentation (antigravity.im, developers.googleblog.com). ↩
Verification: TechCrunch, March 2026, on Lovable's acquisition hunt and competitive pressures. ↩
Speaker, mid — "Nadn. You were S tier for so long..." ↩
Speaker, early — "Lovable, bold, zappier, rip lovable." ↩