I went down a rabbit hole this morning reading three different late-2025 Juejin roundups side by side, all of which purported to answer what AI to use in 2026, and what crystallized for me is that the three of them are actually answering three different questions on three different scorecards with no shared bridge between any of them. The first was a December picking piece that ranked eight tools on a five-axis decimal scorecard — CodeBuddy 9.6 at the top, Blackbox 7.2 at the bottom, with Cody, Ghostwriter, Codeium, Tabnine, CodeWhisperer, and JetBrains AI Assistant in between. The second was the 2025年度盘点 that named Gemini as 首选 for 多模态 plus 超长上下文, ChatGPT as 首选 for 通用性强, and Claude as 其他 for 代码能力强, with all three priced at 140元 per month on a yuan-mode monthly bill. The third was a November frontend piece that named Cursor as 综合能力第一, GitHub Copilot as 最佳生态集成, Codeium as 性价比之王, and V0.dev as 前端UI生成专家, with a five-star rating column tacked onto each row. Three posts, three scorecards, one reader question, and not a single one of them produces a recommendation I can compare against the other two.
The angle I want to put down is that all three roundups claim to answer the same question — what AI tool should an engineer use in 2026 — but each is sorting on a different axis, and the cross-axis bridge has never been published. The decimal piece sorts on code completion plus code generation plus 自主代理 plus 多模态 plus team collaboration, and prints its verdict as 9.6/10. The yuan-mode annual review sorts on 推荐 plus 核心优势 plus 访问门槛 plus 月费 and prints 首选 or 其他, with the monthly bill reading 140元 across Gemini Pro, ChatGPT Plus, and Claude Pro. The November frontend piece sorts on 综合能力 plus 生态集成 plus 性价比 and prints a five-star rating. The structural tell is that the three pieces agree on a handful of names — Cursor, GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, Claude — and disagree on what those names mean. Cursor is 综合能力第一 in the November piece and absent from the December decimal scorecard. ChatGPT is 首选 in the annual review and absent from the November piece. CodeBuddy is the highest-decimal in the December piece and absent from both of the others.
The meta-pattern I want to write down is that the December 2025 search results page for what AI to use in 2026 is now a three-format standoff where each format asks a different reader-question under the same headline, and the engineer has to do the cross-format multiplication by hand. The decimal piece answers the within-coding-IDE question. The yuan-mode annual review answers the within-consumer-chat question. The November frontend piece answers the within-frontend-UI question. None has a column for what the next scorecard sorts on, none has a row for how the decimal piece measures frontend UI, and none acknowledges the others even when the recommended tool is the same name. When I try to assemble a 2026 stack for the projects I am shipping this quarter, I end up reading the decimal piece to shortlist CodeBuddy plus Cursor plus Cody, then the annual review to figure out that the same stack costs 140元 a month for ChatGPT Plus plus 20 dollars for Cursor Pro plus another 20 for Claude Pro, then the November piece to confirm that V0.dev plus Codeium plus GitHub Copilot is the cheaper tier for the frontend side, and the cross-format total ends up closer to a mortgage payment than any of the roundups hints. Honestly I am a little skeptical that grabbing one of these three posts and treating it as the answer is enough, because each was written for a different reader-job.
The practical takeaway I want to write down is that I now read the three camps as three separate ranking dialects of the same question rather than as three separate answers. The decimal piece is useful for the within-coding-IDE shortlist and not for the monthly bill. The yuan-mode annual review is useful for the within-consumer-chat shortlist and not for the IDE ranking. The November frontend piece is useful for the within-frontend shortlist and not for either of the others. My gut says the reader has to do the three-way translation by hand — what's the decimal for ChatGPT Plus, what's the monthly bill for Cursor Pro, what's the five-star rating for Claude Code — and the translation is in none of the roundups, and one column could have answered the whole question.
I will reassess in three months. For now I am still on Cursor Pro plus Claude Code for coding, ChatGPT Plus for general chat, Gemini AI Pro for the Sheets AI work, and NotebookLM for the occasional PDF experiment, and I am keeping a per-tool log of which camp each tool appeared in and what the verdict was, because the search results page is not going to surface this. Give it six months and I expect either one format to absorb the other two and print a unified verdict, or a fourth camp to spin up with a cross-camp translation column, and whichever moves first will tell me whether the three-camp standoff has finally collapsed or whether the reading plan has permanently turned into a multi-format integration job.
Top comments (0)