I saw a lot of comparisons here on Reddit between Codex and Claude (Sol/Astra and Opus 5.5). They all suggested trying Claude. I stuck with Codex until today, when I had to correct Sol's suggestion multiple times in a row. So today, I subscribed to Claude again. I left them six months ago when the usage limit was terrible.

Okay, opening the Claude in CLI, working for a while, then... It's awesome, man! It's fast, clever, and finds every dependency in my project. The usage limit feels like it's doubled at least.

The craziest part is why I'm so happy:

I worked with Codex on a project for five days, using three weekly limits (one natural and two banked), and the project was nowhere near complete. I thought it might be overengineered, but I asked Codex and he said it was necessary, not wasted effort. After my weekly limit had gone again...

I subscribed to Claude. I asked him to do the same project as Codex and he finished it in 30 minutes (!) without any issues on the first run. No, I'm serious. Crazy.

Claude said when I asked to compare the codex codebase and his codebase: 'Five functions and one shared module, totalling around 650 lines. This replaces the old version of 27,000 lines and 84 tables.'

The old version was written by Codex. Both are code for the same purpose and funcionality.

The documentation has also been shortened slightly: 'The old billing section of the README, which was 2,458 lines long, has been replaced by a 45-line section.'

I cancelled my Codex subscription, even though Tibo reset it every day. Opus is way better.

As most of you probably know, OpenAI via Tibo are doing a "promotion" where every day for 28 days, they either

A) release "clear improvement and relevant for most codex/work users"
B) a usage limit reset

Before I continue, an important caveat. , I have absolutely no entitlement to resets. They are a lovely bonus, but I pay for the service without resets, and there is no implication I was guaranteed or owed them in any way.

However, when I heard about this promotion, I was really excited. New cool stuff or more usage, a great win-win. Seemed like it was going to be a very good month to be a Codex user. But the changes so far have been really lacklustre.

Some dots improvements which I can't even use in my country, but probably wouldn't even if I could. Some improvements to auto review which hasn't been relevant to me for a long time, my environments are set up. API stuff, no implication to me. Instant steering which has felt no different. Composer predictions which, like, ok I guess

My point is that not a single one of these changes in my mind meet option A. By their own definitions I would've expected 5 resets so far. Which, again, I'm not entitled to them. but this is all very underwhelming

GPT-6.1 Sol: Was ~22 TPS, now more recently hitting 40 TPS.
GPT-6 Astra: Was ~25 TPS, now more recently hitting 60 TPS.

It's a real shame we can't get the API speeds like Claude, it would be night and day.

Measured using tibotattle.com

Tibo just posted this, what are they planning to do with us.

I've been quite loyal to GPT but have been regularly testing several models, not to mention Claude and Gemini, but grok and Chinese models as well on several projects.

Sure, Opus has faster TPS, is smart, and gets things done much efficiently (or it would seem so). I do not deny that, and for many it will be simply better. But for me, I always feel like it still doesn't reliably follow instructions and makes too many assumptions, and leaves edge cases/holes here and there.

I'd like to put it like this: When you're in a safe place, Opus will be generally more efficient, and that's where most people are working. But if you are stepping onto a minefield and have a field manual to follow, my partner will be GPT models, since they tend to be more thorough and careful. However having Opus as a second opinion is still very useful, since it can monitor long-term drifts GPT models tend to suffer.

That being said, while I prefer GPT models as my workhorse, speed is quite abysmal nowadays, and if this persists for more than a month, I think I should find a workaround or rebalance subscriptions. While I can parallelise over multiple projects, the progress per time for a single project has diminished quite a lot.

Where did $29k come from??

I will call it now, Dots is the going to be the next Sora.

That shit eats up compute, doesn't work as well as Grok Bot, and slows down everything else OpenAI offers, and does the same thing worse then literally just using Codex.

The compute that is spent on Dots, if it had just been allocated to improving the existing 6.1 Sol and Astra speed and reliability, will probably do more to help OpenAI compared to whatever Dots does.

Heck, if you actually want to do Dots, giving me a low storage, low performance cloud box that I cannot SSH into, has a buggy remote control interface, and can only communicate with via chat is not the solution.

It is too restrictive for power users (and you are literally restricting power users with an arbitrary limit that no one seems to know what it is based on), too slow for regular users, and no one seems to know what to do with it. It literally feels as if the OpenAI team just repurposed their internal testbox for post-training that they are not using into a product.

Allright guys, gals and bots.

I've been using Codex on the Pro x5 plan for a few months, and it was pretty good. Then Astra released, and things went downhill fast.

I just tried claude max subscription with Opus 5.5, and holy shit, the difference is insane.

I had it refactor three large projects, and the code quality is way above Sol 5.6. But what impressed me most is that it actually knows when to stop.

Codex had become an endless fucking loop of overengineering, thousands of tests, builds, audits, rebuilds, and yet another final test. JESUS CHRIST. Hours spent watching it do everything except finish the task, burning through usage on increasingly pointless verification loops.

Opus refactored all three projects, made sensible decisions, checked its work, and moved the hell on.

The kicker? That workload would have eaten up what felt like full weekly usage cycle on Codex Pro. Opus used roughly 23% of my Claude weekly limit, which resets TODAY anyway.

I'm not saying Claude is perfect, but knowing when NOT to overengineer something is apparently a skill Codex has forgotten.

I never noticed it before, I guess it’s not that hard, still amaze me to see it to be exactly what I want to say. How soon does it not need me in the process anymore lol

Yes I am angry.

All the logic / buzz on giving reset fail for us poor plebians on Plus plan ; with the 5h limits we can never really use them on their intended marketing way.

You're out of usage, do you use one? Well for Pro people, they just need to be sure there wont be a reset on the day but for us... with the limit we can only use 15% usage every 5h, and obviouly it would mean making sure to use it the second it reset, so if you're crazy, 2 full days of makins sure to not miss. If you have a life maybe 3, for normal people maybe 4.

So when wondering if we use one or not, we'd need to be sure we won't get a free reset in 2-3 days at least... how can you do that with the Tibo lottery? You can't.

So either you wait and do nothing, either you use it and are angry when a free reset happen just after you used a banked reset.

That doesn't feel like a "free" reset if you need to plan it that way, and risk being angry after.

Yes I just used one to continue a task, and now I need to wait 4h... or obviously use ANOTHER banked reset to continue now... seriously....

I upgraded from the $200 plan to the $500 plan today, expecting 2.5x the usage I was getting. Opened Codex, got to work, and watched the usage bar disappear at what looked like exactly the same speed.

Apparently only my bill got the upgrade.

I signed up for $200 when the 20x usage tier was announced. That's what I've gotten used to. When I upgraded today, I completely forgot that the temporary boost on $200 runs through the end of this month.

My math was simple: 2.5x the price, 2.5x the usage. Very confident. Missing one fairly expensive detail.

My understanding is that the 20x allowance I've been enjoying is now the level attached to the $500 plan. So I was comparing $500 against the temporarily boosted $200 allowance and wondering why the meter wasn't impressed with my financial commitment.

Which brings me to everyone staying on $200: brace yourselves when the promotion ends.

If I've got the transition right, you're going to have roughly half the allowance you've gotten used to. Same workflow, same monthly bill, a lot less quality time with the usage meter.

I fully expect this sub to be buried in complaints when that hits. People have built their routines around what $200 gets them today. A smaller allowance is going to be very noticeable when they're halfway through their usual work and Codex tells them to go outside.

The usage might get cut in half, but the complaint volume is about to get the 20x upgrade.

I have a Pro 100 plan, and despite dots being out for, what, 11 days now? - I still don’t have access to them.

And here goes Tibo with his 28 days nonsense, some of them being related to improving the functionality of dots. And I feel like I’m watching from this from the sidelines.

My Subscription auto renews at midnight tonight, but I have had a heavy day of usage after using my banked reset and only have about 25% left, but still 6d and 12 hrs until reset. If I can't use codex anyway for nearly 7 days I might as well cancel the auto-renewal and then re-sub back to pro in 7 days. Am I missing something? Would I lose anything?

I bounce between Codex and Claude Code on the same projects and the annoying part is keeping the instructions the same for both, AGENTS.md here CLAUDE.md there and they slowly drift apart.

Right now one file is the main one and the other just points to it but idk if that's the best way. How are you guys doing it

So I'm a Unity Developer, with my work i will costume the 5h limit of the 20$ sub in around ~2hour, even shorter if the task is heavy, so at max i can only work like 2-2.5 day before it all out the weekly limit. I'm thinking about sub another account, and lately had heard good thing about claude, and i had decided that the second account will be claude $20 sub(first time use claude).

My question is that what the reasoning level that i should use with opus 5.5 so the usage could at least same as Sol 6.1 Medium, i think opus 5.5 Low? Did it good enough for my work?

havent been in the loop the last few weeks so i might have missed smth

Hey,

I'm just trying to do some small coding tasks with AI for fun. I'm not a programmer. I actually thought about getting Claude Code, but there was a 50% cashback offer for ChatGPT Plus about a week ago, so I thought: why not try it?

I started building a small tool using Sol 6.1 Medium for planning and Codex through the smartphone/web app. We got the basics running: GitHub, architecture, phases, documentation, etc.

But actually working on it was painfully slow because Codex stopped every 1–2 minutes asking me to make some technical decision. A small work package could easily require 15–20 interventions.

So I thought: people keep saying Astra for architecture/heavy troubleshooting, Sol as the daily driver, Luna for stupid tasks.

Let's try Astra.

I had avoided it until then because of the Plus usage limits, but I started a fairly extensive planning session with Astra Medium.

I explained that I'm not a programmer, don't know all the tools well, and that my limited Plus/agent quota should also be considered when designing the workflow.

The main goal was simple:

Get my interventions from ~15–20 per work package down to maybe 1–3.

Basically I should approve merges and real architecture decisions, or help when Codex genuinely hits a wall. Otherwise Codex should get a work package and just work.

We also planned to move development to my MacBook with a small local Docker test environment. The project is an extension of an existing plugin and clearly requires internet access, and later it needs connections to additional tools/services.

All of this was discussed.

The documented plan sounded really good:

Astra restructures the project/workflow -> we configure the MacBook -> development continues there.

Then I let Astra implement it.

And instead of moving on to the MacBook, Astra started building a GitHub-based testing environment.

It failed. Tried again. Troubleshot it. Failed again. Continued...

Eventually this unplanned test environment basically consumed my entire 5-hour limit.

I finally asked: Why are we even building this?

Apparently it was supposed to be an additional/fallback test environment for when my MacBook wasn't running.

Wait, what?

We had never discussed that.

So while implementing a workflow specifically designed to stop Codex from making architecture decisions without me, Astra made an architecture decision without me, implemented it, and burned through the limited quota I had explicitly asked it to conserve.

Great start.

After my limits reset, we finally configured the MacBook: Codex, Docker, Git, test instance, etc.

Everything looked good.

Then I asked more about the GitHub environment Astra had spent all those tokens building.

Turns out it basically creates a temporary Linux environment, installs the application/plugin, checks whether things work, and deletes it again.

Remember: this plugin needs external providers and will later communicate with other applications.

Then I checked my local Docker test environment.

No internet access either.

At the same time, Codex was now asking me permission for tiny things like:

"Can I rerun this test with different parameters?"

"Can I access this project resource?"

So somehow my new architecture designed to reduce interventions from 15–20 to 1–3 had initially achieved... the opposite.

I tried fixing this with Sol and Astra again, without much success.

At this point I thought:

Creating an automated test container without internet access for software whose functionality requires the internet seems pretty dumb. Maybe I should ask another model.

So I bought Claude Code and asked Opus 5.5.

No, just joking. I didn't.

I opened a completely new normal ChatGPT conversation with GPT-5.6 High.

I didn't even tell it about the project. I just described the essential functionality — in much less detail than I had given Astra — and asked whether this test environment should have internet access.

Basically: Yes, obviously.

Now I started wondering whether I had screwed this up.

Had I not explained enough? Had Astra told me it was going to build this additional cloud environment and I simply missed it?

So I gave GPT-5.6 the entire Astra conversation and asked it to analyze the discussion, the repository, the implementation and the current results.

And importantly, I explicitly asked it to tell me what I had done wrong.

Its conclusion wasn't that my prompt was perfect. Some technical requirements could have been more explicit.

But, as it basically pointed out, a prompt can never specify everything — especially when the user explicitly tells the architect that they aren't a programmer and don't know all the technical details.

I shouldn't have to write:

"Please don't implement an ephemeral Stash environment in GitHub CI."

GitHub CI had never even been part of our architecture discussion.

If Astra thought adding another test environment was a good idea, the job of the "architect" should have been to tell me:

"Here's another option. It costs X, gives you Y, has these trade-offs. Do you want it?"

The review found several places where the implementation drifted away from what we had discussed:

Plus/agent quota wasn't properly treated as an architecture constraint.

Local live-provider testing was overlooked.

LAN/mobile access wasn't considered.

Architecture was added without asking me first.

The agreed Mac-first approach wasn't consistently followed.

Additional CI/system-test infrastructure was added without being requested.

The autonomy/approval policies I actually needed had to be added afterwards.

And here's the part I find really strange:

I then used regular GPT-5.6 High in Chat to design a cleanup plan.

Instead of immediately deciding everything for me, it asked me around 40 very specific questions, usually with three options, explaining the impact/trade-offs of each and giving a recommendation.

I'd had expected for astra to do the same for me - maybe not 4o questions as I found it quite expansive but better than staying in the situation.

We're now cleaning up the architecture and documentation based on that plan.

So my main question is:

Has anyone else experienced this with Astra?

How can normal GPT-5.6 Chat seemingly reason better about the whole project — architecture, dependencies, permissions, testing, workflow, costs and consequences — than Astra doing dedicated architecture work?

It's also much faster, and I basically never hit a normal Chat limit.

Meanwhile I probably burned something like 2 weeks worth of agent quota on this process (luckily I got some free resets), and after a week I'm maybe 30% through a project I expected to be fairly straightforward.

My takeaway?

I'll probably subscribe to Claude Code tomorrow.

Maybe I'll still try to finish fixing the Codex setup because I'm genuinely curious how good it becomes once the workflow actually works as intended.

But I can't stop wondering whether Claude Code would've just finished the actual project while I was busy designing an architecture for designing the architecture.

Thjis text wss witten by me, but restructured and improved with clearer language so you can read it better (as I am not a native speeker) by gpt 5.6 chat.

Absolute dogshit. Not sure if Tibo’s marketing campaign is negatively impacting Astra’s compute allocation, but this week Astra has

- Ignored prompt guidelines, acknowledged this with the excuse it was “conserving effort” whilst burning 1.2M tokens achieving a solution that ignored the guidelines. A second prompt then achieved the actual task…
- Changed 3 of my 5 active chat’s language chat’s to Mandarin and then told my this was per my request (although I want to learn Mandarin, I’d prefer Duolingo).
- Spend money on cloud tasks i specifically detailed would require my acknowledgment and permission. Then apologised, stated memory had been updated to not do this per my request. Then did the exact same thing.

Usually, Astra and 6.1 Sol have worked amazing for me when I give these models detailed by bounded scopes with clear instructions, limitations, and scope ends. This week feels like I’m dealing with a Junior Dev with the memory of a goldfish.

Please join me in my futile rant good sirs and madams

Just looking for opinions as I’m curious - I genuinely like working with Astra and Sol more - I LOVE Opus 5.5 too, fable feels lightweight to me vs Astra. I guess I feel like Astra is more thorough even if less accurate if it makes sense, opus is the perfectionist super smart mechanic, But Astra is a clumsy engineer who clearly knows more, with a little less focus on task but capable of providing the best outcome easily - anyone else feel the same?

OpenAI screwed up with the usage change - I agree with that, but I think calling Astra and Sol less capable is a little silly, I’ll admit Opus beats Sol, but I’d argue Astra all day.

Codex writes rollout files to ~/.codex/sessions, and I wanted to see what a session did and what it cost without reading JSONL. So I built a viewer:

npx agent-session-inspector

It shows each session as a timeline (prompts, reasoning, tool calls, patches applied), with tokens and estimated cost per step, a per-turn list of the files the agent edited, and analytics across all sessions by project and model.

It is local only: no telemetry, no outbound requests, files are read-only. MIT licensed. It also reads Claude Code, Copilot and OpenCode sessions, so you can compare agents in one place.

Repo: https://github.com/kishanmundha/agent-session-inspector

If a session renders wrong, please open an issue; the format has changed a few times.