Your team runs three coding agents. Procurement wants to consolidate to one before renewal. Every engineer has a strong opinion, and none of the opinions comes with data.
The Problem
Each tool reports usage its own way, in its own console, if at all. You can't compare them on the same terms, and benchmarks from the internet don't tell you how they do on your codebase, with your engineers, on your kinds of work.
How It Cascades
The consolidation decision comes down to whoever argues loudest.
Spend is split across tools with no combined view.
Engineers forced off the tool that works for their kind of work quietly lose time.
The Insight
The fair comparison is your own sessions, run through one pipeline and one analysis, with a clear label wherever a tool reports less than the others.
The Solution
VibeCheck captures Claude Code, Codex and Cursor sessions through one pipeline and reads each one for planning, testing, review, rework and corrections. The Usage model ledger groups spend by coding tool and model. In Sessions, filter to one provider and one kind of work, say Codex on refactors, and compare it with Claude Code on the same work: what those sessions cost, how often they planned, how many corrections they took, how often they needed rework. Cursor's desktop agent reports less than the other two. VibeCheck counts the tokens it reports when a session ends and sees which tests it asked to run, but not whether they passed, and the session page labels those figures so nobody reads them as a full count.
The Outcome
You standardize, or deliberately don't, based on how each tool performs on your work, and you keep one view of spend whatever mix you land on.