If they didn’t constantly reset, they’d be about the same as Anthropic.

Right now, I find that Grok offers better value, uses fewer tokens per turn, and makes better code. I haven’t tried Cursor because I don’t want to change editors again, but maybe I should try it…

▲

apitman 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are there any projects that track how much usage of each model translates to how much percentage drop in weekly/5hr windows?

▲

taosx 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Usage? Not exactly. But I tried to make something that can estimate dollars per tokens in actual usage while taking into account multiple factors.

https://harness.eveid.com/lazy-harness-cost-simulation

▲

hyldmo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Just curious, was this coded with Claude or Codex? Copy reads very Claude to me but I’m curious if thats an actual pattern or just me

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

timr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not that I know of. AA's token use metrics (mentioned in this article) are indicative, however. They say explicitly here that the Grok models are notably token efficient. This is my experience.

▲

esafak 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That is not true; GPT is the most reasoning efficient model family on the market.

	▲	timr an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The benchmark article we're replying to shows that Grok token usage is at least on par with the latest OpenAI models [1], and significantly cheaper per token: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6#token-use So depending on how you want to define "token efficiency", Grok is either tied with OpenAI, or in the lead. [1] Though I grant that 4.6 appears to be wordier, on the order of Terra max.
	▲	pickleRick243 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, even without the resets, chatgpt subscription currently goes quite a bit further than an equivalent anthropic plan. The main reason to have an anthropic plan is to get access to Fable 5 if you feel the quality of output makes it worth it.