Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

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…

View on HN

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com