Coding assistants have matured past the point where any of them fails to autocomplete a function. The interesting question is what happens on a change that spans five files.
How we tested
One mid-sized web application, three assistants rotated across the same backlog: bug fixes, a schema migration, test coverage for an untested module, and one refactor. Every generated diff was reviewed before merging, and we logged how often a change was accepted without edits.
Findings
- Single-file edits. Effectively a tie. All three produced usable code with minor adjustments.
- Multi-file changes. The main differentiator. Assistants that index the whole repository produced coherent diffs; those working from open tabs missed call sites.
- Test generation. Useful everywhere, but generated tests inherit the same misunderstanding as the code they test, so they do not catch logic errors.
- Review burden. Large automated diffs create a real cost. Changes presented as smaller, sequenced commits were merged much faster.
What we would choose
Repository indexing and transparent diff review matter more than raw completion speed. Query limits on lower tiers are the practical constraint for heavy use, so check the allowance against your own commit frequency before committing to a plan.
Comments (0)
Log in to join the discussion
Log InNo comments yet