1. Same heavy work, and Claude finishes first
This wasn't a quick back-and-forth chat. These were long jobs: read a lot of material, work through several steps, make calls along the way, and hand back a real chunk of finished work.
I ran Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol side by side, both set to medium reasoning. I didn't put one of them in some ultra-light mode to make it look good.
Claude was clearly faster. It also handed back more finished work. GPT-6.1 Sol does get the job done. It just feels like "slowly... slowly... but yes, it's moving."
For a single question, a few extra seconds don't matter. But once you run AI as a long-shift worker, over and over, it adds up. Ten extra minutes, 20 times, is 200 minutes.
Winning a test score by 2 points matters less than getting two more real jobs done before the end of the day.
2. Then I checked the usage meters: 31% vs 3%
The usage numbers were even wilder.
After about 1 hour of running both in parallel, ChatGPT showed 69% left. So roughly 31% was gone. Claude had used only about 3%.
31 divided by 3 is about 10.3. It's tempting to shout "10 times better!"
But writing "Claude is 10.3 times better value" would be sloppy. The two percentages aren't measured the same way. The plans have different totals, different 5-hour windows, different weekly limits, different weights per model, and different ways of counting each feature.
It's not even apples to oranges.
One might be a gas gauge. The other might be the time left at an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Still, it matters a lot when you're deciding what to pay for. Same day, same kind of work: one meter barely moves, the other melts away. And the one that barely moves also finishes first.
It's weak as science. It's strong evidence for your wallet.
3. And then: "Selected model is at capacity", wait 30 seconds
Next, OpenAI showed me this:
Selected model is at capacity. Please try a different model.
I was already thinking "wow, this meter drops fast." Now the road itself was jammed.
I had to wait about 30 seconds.
Seriously?
Am I paying for usage, or for time sitting at a red light?
The exact same message was reported on the OpenAI Developer Community forum in September 2026. The person who posted it said it happened even while they still had usage left. In other words, "I used up my allowance" and "this model is too busy right now" can be two separate problems.
For long jobs, that difference is huge.
Even with plenty of allowance left, if you can't get into the model at that moment, the work stops. 30 seconds sounds small. But add the retries, picking another model, checking where things stopped, and a person having to come back to the screen, and an unreliable service quietly eats your working hours.
So any AI comparison now needs more than "smart," "fast," and "cheap." It needs how often it actually works the moment you need it.
4. Why Opus 5.5 feels fast lines up with what Anthropic says
Anthropic released Claude Opus 5.5 on September 22, 2026. It says that for typical pay-per-use workloads, it costs about 40% less to run than Opus 5.
The company also stresses that it finishes the same work with less text, fewer steps, and fewer tool calls. Claude Code also has a Fast mode, which Anthropic says can be up to 2.5 times faster under its own test conditions.
My comparison didn't test Fast mode, so I'm not saying "officially 2.5 times, so I got 2.5 times too."
What matters is what "fast" really means.
It's not just how many words per second come out.
It doesn't get lost. It doesn't redo things. It doesn't fire off useless tool calls. It needs fewer rounds of back-and-forth with you.
All of that counts as "fast."
For long agent jobs, how many moves it takes to reach the goal matters more than one smart answer.
5. Meanwhile, OpenAI's $200 Pro plan is getting less
As of September 30, 2026, OpenAI's public Help Center still listed the $200 Pro plan as "Pro 20x."
But a separate OpenAI help page says eligible existing users keep their old usage until October 29, 2026. After that, they move to a lower included amount, while still paying the same $200 a month.
On top of that, Business Insider's September 30 report and notices said to be sent to users say Work/Codex drops from 20x the Plus plan to 10x, and GPT-6 Pro chat drops from 200 messages a week to 100.
So right now we're in an awkward in-between:
The public page still says 20x.
Users being moved over were told about a lower limit starting October 30.
At the same time, OpenAI added a new $500-a-month Pro 500 plan, putting the biggest usage and GPT-6 Astra Ultrafast at the top.
The ceiling went up.
But the $200 seat gets a smaller plate.
It's like a fancy restaurant opening a new VIP room while serving half portions to its regulars.
6. 62,500 credits is a lot. But it's not a lasting price cut
According to notices shared by existing $200 Pro users, they get a one-time 62,500 usage credits, worth about $2,500, which expire on December 31, 2026.
That's genuinely big.
It helps a lot during the switch.
But one-time credits and long-term monthly value are two different things.
While the credits last, it feels like you can use it all you want. After December 31, it's back to the normal monthly price and the normal limits.
A huge supply drop arrived.
Next year's supply line is a different story.
So if you're comparing, look at this: once the credits are gone, how much real work does $200 a month get done?
7. The real measure: finished work ÷ money ÷ waiting time
For heavy users, simple test-score rankings aren't enough anymore.
At minimum, track these:
- Usable tasks finished per hour
- Tasks finished per 1% of your usage limit
- Tasks finished per dollar
- Time a person spends fixing the output
- Time lost to "busy" errors, retries, and switching models
- How often long jobs finish without getting cut off
As a formula, something like:
Real value = usable finished work ÷ (monthly fee + extra charges + human fixing time + waiting and retry cost)
An AI subscription isn't a fine wine.
It's a power tool.
Peak power matters. But so does how many cuts you get per battery, whether it overheats and shuts off halfway, and whether it says "we're busy right now" the second you plug it in.
8. Right now I want to lean on Claude. But I don't want OpenAI to quit the price fight
One round of testing doesn't prove "Claude wins at everything."
GPT-6.1 Sol has its own strengths: it can take in about 1.05 million tokens at once, it comes with OpenAI's tools, and its API price is lower than Astra's. OpenAI pitches GPT-6.1 Sol as close to Astra-level for complex coding, using a computer, and professional work, at a lower cost.
The problem isn't that the model is weak.
The problem is that the total work you get out of the subscription looks weak.
On similar heavy work, Claude is faster. Its meter drops more slowly. ChatGPT throws "busy" waits on top of that. And the lasting $200 limit is shrinking.
So of course you'd want to make Claude your main tool for now.
But if OpenAI drops out completely, that's a problem too.
If the competition gets weak, Anthropic has less pressure to keep today's generous limits. Anthropic's own Max plan page says it may add extra weekly, monthly, or per-model limits to manage demand.
The best world for users isn't one where a single company stays nice forever.
Claude gets cheaper.
OpenAI fights back.
Google and others jump in.
Claude adds more again.
OpenAI hits back again.
Keep the price war going.
We'll be in the stands, clutching our monthly bills.
Bottom line
From what I measured, Claude Opus 5.5 looks clearly ahead on speed for long jobs and on how far your usage limit goes.
But I won't call 31% vs 3% a flat 10.3 times difference. The totals behind those percentages are different.
Still, add OpenAI cutting back the $200 Pro plan, the temporary 62,500-credit cushion, and the real "busy" wait I hit, and the yardstick is clear:
Real AI value is how much work gets done by the end of the month, and how little you had to wait.
So I'm glad Claude is strong right now.
But I want OpenAI to keep fighting too.
The moment Claude wins outright, the next thing to get cut might be my wallet.
To every AI company:
Peacefully.
Please fight a lot harder on price.
References (7)
- OpenAI Help Center — About ChatGPT Pro tiers
https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-about-chatgpt-pro-tiers - OpenAI Help Center — Pro $200 lower included usage / grandfathering through Oct 29
https://help-lb.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-about-chatgpt-pro-tiers - OpenAI API — GPT-6.1 Sol
https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/gpt-6.1-sol - Anthropic — Claude Opus 5.5
https://www.anthropic.com/claude-opus-5-5 - Claude Help Center — What is the Max plan?
https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-max-plan - OpenAI Developer Community — reports of "Selected model is at capacity" with usage remaining
https://community.openai.com/t/request-for-account-review-pro20x-subscription-experiencing-capacity-errors-and-significant-performance-degradation/1400068 - Business Insider — Pro 500 launch and reported Pro 200 allowance reduction
https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-new-plan-pro-500-cost-compute-allowance-2026-9
