gpt-5.6-sol uses fewer tokens and OpenAI has been more generous with usage, but quality-wise I wouldn't say they are inferior to each other.

I have a Claude Code and OpenAI subscription so that I can use Opus/Fable/gpt-5.6 as I please, and the models are often catching things the other models missed. So much that I would significantly weaken my workflow if I dropped one subscription.

My best workflow at the moment is to create the initial plan with Fable (before review/revise-cycling with other models). From my own testing it seems slightly better at arriving at high-level ideal solutions after sweeping the whole project, projecting future needs, then coming up with good trade-offs like "by construction" correctness.

While mostly subjective, maybe the closest objectivity I have here is noticing fewer revision cycles needed with Fable-initialized plans.

This is just the cycle. If the OpenAI offerings are better and cheaper, people will shift there and then those discounts that made it such a deal will evaporate. Anthropic or someone else will entice people back with the discounts.

The whole thing is getting ridiculous.

Sure OpenAI has open source tools, and equivalent or better models, and lower prices, and they get along better with other agentic tools, but Anthropic has much better marketing and I guess that's what matters.

I don't know why this comment's getting down voted. It's absolutely true. I would also add that Anthropic seems to limit, compute, the more you use it because I'm on the Max subscription, and it just stops working for me.

I'll ask it to do something and it'll say, I tried, but I couldn't do it over and over again or some variation of.

But it doesn't do that at the start of my subscription, so...