Just to clarify, one does not get access to the pro model on the Pro plan?

carbocation 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The $20 Plus plan still exists, and does not give access to the pro model.

The $200 Pro plan still exists, and does give access to the pro model.

What is new is a $100 Pro plan that does give access to the pro model, with lower usage limits than the $200 Pro plan.

▲

dimmke 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is still worse than Anthropic's right? Because you get access to their top model even at the $20 price point

▲

Tiberium 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not worse, Anthropic simply has no equivalent model (if you don't consider Mythos) of GPT 5.4 Pro. Google does though: Gemini 3.1 Deep Think.

GPT 5.4 Pro is extremely slow but thorough, so it's not meant for the usual agentic work, rather for research or solving hard bugs/math problems when you provide it all the context.

▲

giwook 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm genuinely asking, when you say Gemini 3.1 DT is an equivalent model of GPT 5.4 Pro, is there a specific benchmark/comparison you're referring to or is this more anecdotal?

And do you mean to say that you don't really use GPT 5.4 Pro unless it's for a hard bug? Curious which models you use for system design/architecture/planning vs execution of a plan/design.

TIA! I'm still trying to figure out an optimal system for leveraging all of the LLMs available to us as I've just been throwing 100% of my work at Claude Code in recent months but would like to branch out.

	▲	simianwords 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Pro and DT model are equivalents because - internally same architecture of best of N - not available in the code harness like Codex, only in the UI (gpt has API) - GPT-5.4 pro is extremely expensive: $30.00 input vs $180.00 output - both DT and Pro are really good at solving math problems

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

irishcoffee 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So, reading the tea leaves, they're either losing subscribers for the $200 plan, or they're not following the same hockey stick path of growth they thought they were... maybe?

Edit: I wonder if this is actually compute-bound as the impetus

▲

tedsanders 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nope, it's just that a lot of people (especially those using Codex) asked us for a medium-sized $100 plan. $20 felt too restrictive and $200 felt like a big jump.

Pricing strategy is always a bit of an art, without a perfect optimum for everyone:

- pay-per-token makes every query feel stressful

- a single plan overcharges light users and annoyingly blocks heavy users

- a zillion plans are confusing / annoying to navigate and change

This change mostly just adds a medium-sized plan for people doing medium-sized amounts of work. People were asking for this, and we're happy to deliver.

(I work at OpenAI.)

	▲	irishcoffee 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the response. I tried to phrase my postulations as just that, I didn’t intend to be an accusatory. You like the job? How’s the day-to-day go? Yanking tickets or more organic?

▲

alyxya 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Plenty of people wanted to spend more than $20 but less than $200 for a plan. It's long overdue IMO.

▲

patates 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Plus plan doesn't get the pro model, which is (AFAICT) the same 5.4 model but thinks like a lot.

▲

jgalt212 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're trying to make words mean what we all think they mean. Stop foisting your Textualism upon us!