---
title: "ATO vs Claude Code / Cursor / Codex alone"
canonical: "https://agentictool.ai/compare/single-runtime"
description: "Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex are authoring tools. ATO is the ops layer above them: multi-runtime war-rooms, consensus review, replay, and local receipts. Use ATO with your preferred coding agent, not instead of it."
---

# ATO vs a single coding runtime

If your stack is only Claude Code (or only Cursor, or only Codex), you still author there. ATO is what you add when one model is not the whole story.

| Dimension | ATO | Claude Code / Cursor / Codex alone |
|---|---|---|
| Primary job | Multi-runtime ops: review, war-room, replay, receipts | Write and edit code with one agent/model family |
| Models in one session | N runtimes side by side with shared audit | Usually one primary agent |
| Disagreement signal | Captured as first-class product surface | Lost in clipboard / terminal scrollback |
| Regression after model swap | Config ledger × stats | Manual / external eval harness |
| Install model | Desktop + CLI + MCP on top of your tools | Editor plugin or CLI agent |

## When to choose ATO

- Non-trivial reviews where a second model should see the first findings
- You already pay for more than one subscription and want receipts
- You need a local system of record for agent work across tools

## When to choose the other tool(s)

- Day-to-day coding in one preferred agent
- Inline edits and IDE integration
- You only ever want one model

## Using them together

Keep your coding agent. Add ATO for multi-LLM review (ato review --consensus), war-rooms, and local receipts.

## Further reading

- [Claude vs Codex vs Gemini receipts](/posts/compare-claude-codex-gemini.html)
- [Agent brief](/docs/for-agents.md)
- [Install](/docs/install.md)

- [Deep dive: ATO vs Claude Code + Codex MCP](/posts/ato-vs-claude-code-codex-mcp.html)