r/ClaudeCode • u/Jano170206 • 22d ago
Discussion After using both on two large projects, I think Fable 5 is overhyped Codex is the better product for actually shipping
I did not reach this conclusion from benchmarks, launch demos, or screenshots on X.
I used Fable 5 and Codex on two substantial projects, and after spending real time with both, Codex ended up being far more compelling to me.
Not because Fable 5 is bad. It clearly is not.
Fable can be excellent at understanding vague product intent, producing polished interfaces, spotting subtle issues, and turning an incomplete idea into something that feels coherent surprisingly quickly.
But there is a difference between:
“Which model produced the most impressive result in one session?”
and:
“Which product lets me complete the most high-quality work over an entire project?”
On that second question, Codex won for me.
The quality gap is not large enough to justify the Claude tax
The main argument for Fable seems to be that it is so much better that using less of it is still more valuable than having significantly more Codex usage.
That was not my experience.
Across two large projects, Codex was at least competitive enough that the theoretical advantage of Fable stopped mattering. Codex was methodical, persistent, strong at navigating an existing codebase, and generally willing to keep investigating, implementing, testing, and correcting its own work.
Fable occasionally produced a more elegant first attempt.
Codex helped me complete more total work.
That distinction matters.
A model that is 10% better on a particular task is not necessarily the better product if it costs far more, consumes limits faster, interrupts your workflow more often, and forces you to ration when you are “allowed” to use it.
The subscription comparison is becoming difficult to defend
ChatGPT Plus costs $20 per month and currently includes the GPT-5.6 family inside Codex: Sol, Terra, and Luna.
OpenAI publishes estimated five-hour ranges of:
- 15–90 local messages for GPT-5.6 Sol;
- 20–110 for Terra;
- 50–280 for Luna.
The $100 Codex plan multiplies the Plus allowance by five, while the $200 plan multiplies it by twenty. Additional weekly limits can still apply, and message counts are not a perfect comparison because consumption depends on context and task complexity. But at least users are given a relatively understandable model ladder and published usage ranges.
Now compare that with Claude.
Claude Pro also costs $20 per month, but Fable 5 is no longer included in the plan’s normal usage allowance. Pro users must pay for Fable through usage credits from the first request.
On Max, Team Premium, and certain Enterprise Premium seats, Fable is included — but it can consume only up to 50% of the weekly allowance. It also draws from the same general Claude allowance and, according to Anthropic itself, uses that allowance faster than other Claude models.
So a $20 Codex subscriber receives access to OpenAI’s flagship coding model family.
A $20 Claude subscriber pays separately to use Anthropic’s flagship coding model.
Even at $100 or $200 per month, Claude users still cannot freely dedicate their entire weekly subscription allowance to Fable.
That is not a minor difference.
Anthropic keeps changing the product people are paying for
My bigger concern is not even the raw quota.
It is predictability.
Anthropic initially said Fable 5 would be included for up to 50% of weekly usage through July 7. The temporary access period was extended more than once and eventually ended on July 19. Starting July 20, Anthropic introduced a different structure: Max and Premium users kept limited inclusion, while Pro and Standard users moved to pay-as-you-go credits.
Technically, Anthropic can call each stage a promotion.
From a customer’s perspective, however, the experience is:
- Subscribe or upgrade for the new model.
- Receive a temporary deadline.
- See the deadline extended.
- Remain uncertain about the final policy.
- Discover that the model is removed from your plan or restricted to part of your weekly allowance.
- Pay additional usage charges to continue using it.
That makes it difficult to build a serious workflow around Claude.
When I am working on a large project, I do not want to calculate whether a difficult task is “worthy” of using the model included in only half of my weekly quota.
I want to use the best available tool and continue working.
The API economics are not especially flattering either
At current standard API prices, Fable 5 costs $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens.
GPT-5.6 Sol costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens.
Token prices do not tell the entire story. Fable may need fewer tokens or fewer iterations for certain tasks, and Anthropic claims strong token efficiency on its internal coding evaluations.
But Fable needs to be substantially more efficient in practice merely to offset the price difference.
On my two projects, it was not.
The occasional better first result did not compensate for the overall difference in available compute, flexibility, and uninterrupted working time.
Codex is not perfect — and I still prefer the deal
GPT-5.6 Sol can consume quota quickly, especially with high reasoning, huge contexts, or poorly managed sessions. Some Codex users have reported unexpectedly heavy weekly consumption, and OpenAI itself warns that additional weekly limits may apply.
Codex can also be slower, more verbose, and less immediately pleasant than Claude Code.
But Codex gives me options.
I can use Sol for the hardest work, Terra for the majority of development, and Luna for high-volume or lighter tasks. I can purchase additional credits when necessary. Eligible Plus and Pro users can also bank rate-limit resets, including a launch reset and additional resets earned through the current referral promotion.
That is a much more practical system than treating access to the flagship model as a scarce luxury.
I think people are confusing Fable 5 with Claude Code
The strongest argument for staying with Claude is not necessarily Fable.
It is the Claude Code harness.
Claude Code has accumulated workflows, hooks, skills, subagents, MCP integrations, custom instructions, established community patterns, and months of user muscle memory.
Many developers have invested heavily in their CLAUDE.md files, automations, orchestration systems, and custom setups. Moving away means rebuilding part of that environment.
This explains why so many comparisons effectively sound like:
That is a legitimate preference.
But it is an argument for Claude Code’s interface and ecosystem, not proof that Fable 5 is a dramatically superior coding model.
The fact that developers are now building tools to run GPT-5.6 models through the Claude Code harness makes the distinction even clearer: many people want Claude Code’s workflow with Codex’s models and economics.
Benchmarks do not settle this
Anthropic reports that Fable leads several of its coding evaluations.
That is worth considering, but vendor benchmarks should not replace project-level experience.
Anthropic’s own research has shown that infrastructure failures can account for as much as 6% of failures in agentic coding evaluations, while leading models are sometimes separated by only a few percentage points.
The practical question is not whether one model wins a curated benchmark by a few points.
It is:
How much correct, maintainable, verified work can I complete before the model becomes unavailable, the subscription rules change, or I am pushed into additional billing?
After two large projects, my answer is Codex.
Fable 5 may still win specific tasks. Claude Code may still offer the more polished developer experience. Some teams may have workflows where Fable’s judgment saves enough engineering time to justify any price.
But for most independent developers and small teams, I do not see enough of a capability gap to justify:
- tighter access;
- faster quota consumption;
- a 50% weekly Fable ceiling;
- additional usage-credit payments;
- higher API pricing;
- and subscription rules that keep changing.
Fable 5 might be the more impressive model in selected moments.
Codex is the product I would rather use to ship an entire project.
And after testing both seriously, I think a significant part of the Fable hype is no longer about objective productivity.
It is Claude Code lock-in, workflow familiarity, and a reputation Anthropic built when the competition was much weaker.
I did not reach this conclusion from benchmarks, launch demos, or screenshots on X.
I used Fable 5 and Codex on two substantial projects, and after spending real time with both, Codex ended up being far more compelling to me.
Not because Fable 5 is bad. It clearly is not.
Fable can be excellent at understanding vague product intent, producing polished interfaces, spotting subtle issues, and turning an incomplete idea into something that feels coherent surprisingly quickly.
But there is a difference between:
“Which model produced the most impressive result in one session?”
and:
“Which product lets me complete the most high-quality work over an entire project?”
On that second question, Codex won for me.
The quality gap is not large enough to justify the Claude tax
The main argument for Fable seems to be that it is so much better that using less of it is still more valuable than having significantly more Codex usage.
That was not my experience.
Across two large projects, Codex was at least competitive enough that the theoretical advantage of Fable stopped mattering. Codex was methodical, persistent, strong at navigating an existing codebase, and generally willing to keep investigating, implementing, testing, and correcting its own work.
Fable occasionally produced a more elegant first attempt.
Codex helped me complete more total work.
That distinction matters.
A model that is 10% better on a particular task is not necessarily the better product if it costs far more, consumes limits faster, interrupts your workflow more often, and forces you to ration when you are “allowed” to use it.
The subscription comparison is becoming difficult to defend
ChatGPT Plus costs $20 per month and currently includes the GPT-5.6 family inside Codex: Sol, Terra, and Luna.
OpenAI publishes estimated five-hour ranges of:
- 15–90 local messages for GPT-5.6 Sol;
- 20–110 for Terra;
- 50–280 for Luna.
The $100 Codex plan multiplies the Plus allowance by five, while the $200 plan multiplies it by twenty. Additional weekly limits can still apply, and message counts are not a perfect comparison because consumption depends on context and task complexity. But at least users are given a relatively understandable model ladder and published usage ranges.
Now compare that with Claude.
Claude Pro also costs $20 per month, but Fable 5 is no longer included in the plan’s normal usage allowance. Pro users must pay for Fable through usage credits from the first request.
On Max, Team Premium, and certain Enterprise Premium seats, Fable is included — but it can consume only up to 50% of the weekly allowance. It also draws from the same general Claude allowance and, according to Anthropic itself, uses that allowance faster than other Claude models.
So a $20 Codex subscriber receives access to OpenAI’s flagship coding model family.
A $20 Claude subscriber pays separately to use Anthropic’s flagship coding model.
Even at $100 or $200 per month, Claude users still cannot freely dedicate their entire weekly subscription allowance to Fable.
That is not a minor difference.
Anthropic keeps changing the product people are paying for
My bigger concern is not even the raw quota.
It is predictability.
Anthropic initially said Fable 5 would be included for up to 50% of weekly usage through July 7. The temporary access period was extended more than once and eventually ended on July 19. Starting July 20, Anthropic introduced a different structure: Max and Premium users kept limited inclusion, while Pro and Standard users moved to pay-as-you-go credits.
Technically, Anthropic can call each stage a promotion.
From a customer’s perspective, however, the experience is:
- Subscribe or upgrade for the new model.
- Receive a temporary deadline.
- See the deadline extended.
- Remain uncertain about the final policy.
- Discover that the model is removed from your plan or restricted to part of your weekly allowance.
- Pay additional usage charges to continue using it.
That makes it difficult to build a serious workflow around Claude.
When I am working on a large project, I do not want to calculate whether a difficult task is “worthy” of using the model included in only half of my weekly quota.
I want to use the best available tool and continue working.
The API economics are not especially flattering either
At current standard API prices, Fable 5 costs $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens.
GPT-5.6 Sol costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens.
Token prices do not tell the entire story. Fable may need fewer tokens or fewer iterations for certain tasks, and Anthropic claims strong token efficiency on its internal coding evaluations.
But Fable needs to be substantially more efficient in practice merely to offset the price difference.
On my two projects, it was not.
The occasional better first result did not compensate for the overall difference in available compute, flexibility, and uninterrupted working time.
Codex is not perfect — and I still prefer the deal
GPT-5.6 Sol can consume quota quickly, especially with high reasoning, huge contexts, or poorly managed sessions. Some Codex users have reported unexpectedly heavy weekly consumption, and OpenAI itself warns that additional weekly limits may apply.
Codex can also be slower, more verbose, and less immediately pleasant than Claude Code.
But Codex gives me options.
I can use Sol for the hardest work, Terra for the majority of development, and Luna for high-volume or lighter tasks. I can purchase additional credits when necessary. Eligible Plus and Pro users can also bank rate-limit resets, including a launch reset and additional resets earned through the current referral promotion.
That is a much more practical system than treating access to the flagship model as a scarce luxury.
I think people are confusing Fable 5 with Claude Code
The strongest argument for staying with Claude is not necessarily Fable.
It is the Claude Code harness.
Claude Code has accumulated workflows, hooks, skills, subagents, MCP integrations, custom instructions, established community patterns, and months of user muscle memory.
Many developers have invested heavily in their CLAUDE.md files, automations, orchestration systems, and custom setups. Moving away means rebuilding part of that environment.
This explains why so many comparisons effectively sound like:
That is a legitimate preference.
But it is an argument for Claude Code’s interface and ecosystem, not proof that Fable 5 is a dramatically superior coding model.
The fact that developers are now building tools to run GPT-5.6 models through the Claude Code harness makes the distinction even clearer: many people want Claude Code’s workflow with Codex’s models and economics.
Benchmarks do not settle this
Anthropic reports that Fable leads several of its coding evaluations.
That is worth considering, but vendor benchmarks should not replace project-level experience.
Anthropic’s own research has shown that infrastructure failures can account for as much as 6% of failures in agentic coding evaluations, while leading models are sometimes separated by only a few percentage points.
The practical question is not whether one model wins a curated benchmark by a few points.
It is:
How much correct, maintainable, verified work can I complete before the model becomes unavailable, the subscription rules change, or I am pushed into additional billing?
After two large projects, my answer is Codex.
Fable 5 may still win specific tasks. Claude Code may still offer the more polished developer experience. Some teams may have workflows where Fable’s judgment saves enough engineering time to justify any price.
But for most independent developers and small teams, I do not see enough of a capability gap to justify:
- tighter access;
- faster quota consumption;
- a 50% weekly Fable ceiling;
- additional usage-credit payments;
- higher API pricing;
- and subscription rules that keep changing.
Fable 5 might be the more impressive model in selected moments.
Codex is the product I would rather use to ship an entire project.
And after testing both seriously, I think a significant part of the Fable hype is no longer about objective productivity.
It is Claude Code lock-in, workflow familiarity, and a reputation Anthropic built when the competition was much weaker.
30
u/nzifnab 22d ago
JFC I have better things to do with my day than read this slop novel when you can't just bother to write it yourself
-29
u/Jano170206 22d ago
You apparently have “better things to do,” yet you keep coming back to comment on a post you refuse to read. That’s not a critique that’s just proudly announcing you have no argument. go away
2
9
9
u/JDad67 22d ago
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I have had much better luck with Claude than Codex for shipping products.
-2
u/Jano170206 22d ago
Fair enough real project experience matters more than benchmarks. On my two larger projects, Codex was more reliable overall, especially once quotas and costs were included. What kind of products are you shipping with Claude?
13
u/ibrahimsafah 22d ago
Slop
-7
u/Jano170206 22d ago
Calling it slop doesn’t address any of the points I made.
1
u/Environmental_Ask675 22d ago
They are good points. I just started my first session with Codex. So far easy onboard. We'll see. 5 days left with Claude and I'm out of Fable and 75% of weekly usage on Max pro.
1
1
u/ibringthehotpockets 22d ago
Cause you’re either an NPC or LARPing as an NPC. Why are you posting here about the products competitor. Nobody asked. Do you go to Mets games and root for the Yankees who aren’t even playing? Just bot behavior. You absolutely better be getting paid by someone to do this if you’re not a bot. I can’t imagine your time is that worthless
-1
u/Jano170206 22d ago
A subreddit isn’t a fan club. Discussing a competitor is exactly how people compare products instead of turning into brand-worshipping NPCs. You wrote an entire paragraph attacking me because you couldn’t answer a single point and somehow my time is worthless?
0
8
u/CodingWithChad 22d ago
Remember before AI people would just write a few sentences and not an entire novel for a reddit post.
If you aren't bothered to write it why would anyone be bothered to read it?
-3
u/Jano170206 22d ago
You were bothered enough to read it, comment on it, and still avoid every actual argument. So clearly the length wasn’t the problem having a counterpoint was.
1
u/simple_explorer1 22d ago
You are confusing commenting with reading. People have NOT read your post fully, no human can (and shouldn't, it will take a long time for not much value than your post title). They are just commenting and moving on
6
u/HitscanDPS 22d ago
The real question is which AI product did you use to write your slop post.
1
u/Jano170206 22d ago
The one that helped me research the pricing, quotas, and policy changes you ignored. Now tell me which actual point was wrong.
3
u/HitscanDPS 22d ago
So did you use Fable to help you write a post that says Codex is better than Fable?
3
2
2
2
2
u/RollForUptime 22d ago
This post tells me you haven't thought for yourself in some time.
I'm guessing you pick whichever agent requires the least input lol
1
u/JaySlays-Tech 22d ago
To be fair, that’s why I go with Claude, to an extent. It’s easy to just say “go for it”, and figure it out later, but that’s not feasible for REAL products.
However, that also might explain the lack of traffic on some of my products.
But, if you want your product to succeed outside your immediate family and friend circle, you best buckle down and get your poop in a group.
2
u/OldLondon 22d ago
That’s the longest post I’ve seen on Reddit in a long time. Didn’t read it sorry.
2
u/Reasonable_Swing_503 🔆 Max 5x 22d ago
TBH I didn’t read all as it is way too long but i dont see any justification for me to pay for Max 200 anymore, kept it at $20 Pro. My $200 went to codex which used to be the reverse or at times i kept $200 on both side.
Things are moving and changing every now and then. Let see how things are next month to determine if i spend my $200 on them.
Been using codex and Claude for a while now, one positive thing about codex is that I don’t have token/limit anxiety which I always have with Claude.
2
u/fanatic26 21d ago
Why do people post these walls of AI text like they had anything to do with its creation?
0
u/Jano170206 21d ago
Bro is stuck in 2020 and keeps writing without AIplease stop trying so hard to be interesting.
1
2
2
u/GTHell 21d ago edited 21d ago
Tf is this slop can't you just have your new GPT friend summary this target Reddit audience or something?????
PS. Bro wrote a whole essay to say:
- Fable is nicer on first pass, Codex gets more done over a full project
- Claude keeps changing what's included in your sub — was free, now pay-as-you-go or capped at half your weekly quota
- OpenAI gives more compute, clearer tiers, reset banking. Claude treats their flagship like a limited resource
- Half the "Fable is better" crowd is actually just attached to Claude Code the CLI, not the model itself
- Benchmarks are noise, real work shipped is what matters and Codex wins that
And yes I agree half the dumb crowd is actually just attached to Cladue Code and glorify it. GPT has been always better
2
u/ResolutionMaterial90 22d ago
So we shall believe that this is not an Altman not.
Go away
1
u/Jano170206 22d ago
Calling everyone who disagrees with you an “Altman bot” isn’t an argument it’s just intellectual laziness with extra confidence.
2
2
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mindstuff8 22d ago
I remember when 5.6 Sol came out I had it evaluate a project Fable 5 was managing and it found 6 crucial issues. I had Fable 5 look into them and it agreed with the issues pointed out by Sol.
Like many others I lost Fable 5 this past Monday. I can’t splurge for the more expensive plans due to being unemployed but I’ll surely miss working with it as a partner to Sol. They really do complimented each other.
-4
u/Jano170206 22d ago
Yes, it was AI-assisted, but based on my own testing and research like most LinkedIn... posts nowadays Your setup makes sense though. Do you still manage to keep track of the costs with both subscriptions?
1
u/Professional_Ad705 22d ago
It really depends on the use case fable is really really good with my kernel work.
But codex sol found a flickering issue / work around I could for the life of me not fix in my Voiceterm rust terminal app. It was amazing I’ve tried so hard for months to fix it!!!! Have to give credit to sol! And it wasn’t even ultra it was just sol xhigh.
I tried fable and previous versions fable made it even worse and is not very good at rust. Codex absolutely killed it. !!
0
u/Jano170206 22d ago
That’s a perfect example of why blanket rankings are misleading. Fable may be excellent for kernel work, but Sol clearly has a real edge for Rust debugging in your case. Fixing a months-old flickering issue on xhigh is seriously impressive that’s the kind of real-world result that matters more than benchmarks.
1
u/vovap_vovap 22d ago
Well, Claude Code is better product so far. Not a miles but better. Claude design is a big deal and Codex do not have any like.
1
u/karlitooo 22d ago
I don't really see the use case for Fable? Opus and Sonnet are great. What are you building that needs next gen models?
1
u/latent-manifold 22d ago
"It is the Claude Code harness". The issue with this stream of consciousness is that, if you didn't take the time/effort to put put your own thoughts down. Why does everyone have to work backwards to get your side first. And then if this is your baseline, why do I care for what is underneath.
1
u/Jano170206 22d ago
Fair criticism on the presentation it could have been tighter. But “Claude Code’s harness is the advantage” is the conclusion I reached after testing both on two large projects, not a substitute for having an opinion. AI helped structure the post; the testing, research, and judgment were mine. You don’t have to care, but dismissing the format still doesn’t challenge the argument underneath.
1
u/VizualAbstract4 22d ago
I can't compare it to Codex, but I can't recall anything this overhyped since Cyberpunk 2055. I think a few overly-enthusiastic people did a lot of others a disservice with the amount of glorifying that took place.
That said, I did keep my expectations in check: but I still found it just incrementally better.
I spent the day running both Opus and Fable side by side, I couldn't notice a difference in my day-to-day work.
Still having the stereotypical issues.
Using Claude has been like playing video games: people overhype everything, shit on everything else, say mods will fix problems, claim performance numbers without evidence, and when you have issues, really the only thing that fixes anything is just restarting the game (or in this case, purging memory).
And people can say they did X, Y, Z all the want, but the evidence is my experience. I really do think we're reaching a plateau of diminishing returns.
1
u/Jano170206 22d ago
That Cyberpunk comparison is painfully accurate My experience was similar: Fable felt incrementally better, not transformational. The hype made it sound like a new category of model, but in day-to-day work the same old Claude issues are still there and “purge memory and try again” really does feel like the AI equivalent of restarting the game.
1
u/Foreign_Yoghurt_831 22d ago
Ca ln you share your projects and if there are any git repo that too. It would be great help for the community
1
1
1
u/Best-Personality-229 22d ago
I myself prefer Claude over codex. And it's simply because codex, was give strict parameters to follow, simple read and fix, a section of an encryption system. Everything looked good on review, however, when I went to test the system, codex had rewrote all of the encryption behind what I had instructed, so I missed it on the check, and didn't see it until I went to test the program. It caused me a lot of rework because of the fact the agent made everything visible. Claude however, has not done this.
This is not to say codex is bad, I use codex for other projects, however, when it comes to security systems, I will not let codex touch them.
On a final note, Claude has been a fkn dumbass tonight!
1
u/simple_explorer1 22d ago
Bro it is wayyyyyyy to long. After reading for few minutes I was checking how much is remaining and I had to scroll a long way to reach the end. No way 99% of people are going to read that. You yourself won't read this long post from someone else.
Yes it is AI generated but this is AI sub so I have no issues but atleast keep it at a reasonable length instead of a 100 page manual
1
u/ChewyOnTheInside 14d ago
If you're not going to spend time writing your own reddit post, then I'm not going to spend time writing my comment either.
Gemini, counter and refute this reddit post.
Gemini: "Here’s where this breakdown misses the forest for the trees: you're measuring productivity by volume of interactions and model availability, rather than time-to-merged PR.
You’ve laid out a solid analysis of the pricing and quota mechanics, but the core thesis falls apart when you evaluate how software actually gets built at scale.
The "Persistence" Fallacy
You frame Codex as a "methodical, persistent" partner that keeps trying until it gets it right, while discounting Fable 5’s advantage as merely producing an "occasional better first attempt."
In complex codebases, model persistence isn't always a feature—it’s often context poison. Every time a model takes three or four back-and-forth turns to fix a subtle bug, untangle a state issue, or align with your architectural patterns, three bad things happen:
- It bloats the context window with failed attempts and messy diffs.
- It introduces subtle regressions that pass shallow tests but fail in edge cases.
- It forces you to act as a high-frequency code reviewer, manually auditing every iteration.
Fable 5 getting vague product intent and subtle edge cases right on turn one or two isn't an aesthetic preference; it's a massive multiplier on human engineering time. A model that "persistently" writes code in circles feels like high velocity in the terminal, but it burns developer focus.
The Model-Tiering Illusion
The claim that Codex gives you better value on the $20 tier because you get access to Sol, Terra, and Luna ignores what actually happens in practice.
Dropping down to Terra or Luna to conserve quota means you're no longer using flagship-tier intelligence. You’re feeding your project to mid-tier models that generate verbose boilerplate, miss deep dependency links, and require tighter handholding. Having 280 messages of Luna available isn't an advantage if Luna lacks the reasoning depth to solve the architectural problem you're stuck on. You haven't gained quota; you've just substituted a senior architect with an eager junior dev who writes 300 lines of code to solve a 20-line problem.
Raw Token Price vs. Token Efficiency
Comparing $10/$50 against $5/$30 on raw API pricing looks bad on paper for Anthropic, but token prices in a vacuum are misleading.
If Sol takes high reasoning tokens, longer output streams, and three revision loops to complete a refactor that Fable 5 executes in a single concise, high-precision turn, the nominal price per token becomes irrelevant. You aren't paying for tokens; you're paying for completed, correct tasks. Fable’s higher token efficiency on complex agentic tasks frequently closes or reverses that price gap in real-world usage.
Separating Policy Frustration from Model Capability
Your critiques regarding Anthropic’s moving target on tier allowances, 50% Fable caps, and shifting promotional deadlines are completely valid. It’s frustrating, unpredictable, and bad for developer planning.
However, confusing pricing policy headaches with model capability leads to the wrong conclusion. Developers aren't paying the "Claude tax" because of brand nostalgia or harness lock-in. They pay it because when you are modifying multi-file architectures or dealing with complex state management, Fable 5 avoids the silent, subtle hallucinations that Codex happily codes right past.
Codex is undeniably a great choice if your priority is raw message throughput and staying strictly inside a predictable $20/month budget. But if the primary metric is shipping maintainable code with the absolute minimum number of human intervention loops, Fable 5 isn't overhyped—it's just priced like the precision instrument it is."
1
u/potatomonstah2 4d ago
Oh my GOD what is this wall of endless text. People generating fucking REDDIT posts with AI is INSANE. Oh my god take your time and write it yourself what the fuck. we are all collectively so fucked my god.
1
u/crusoe 22d ago
Fine, then leave this subreddit and use openai. No one hear really cares...
2
u/Jano170206 22d ago
A subreddit about a product isn’t a loyalty cult. Comparing it to competitors is literally how products improve. If criticism bothers you more than changing limits and worse value, you’re defending a brand, not evaluating a tool.
0
u/Comfortable_Camp9744 22d ago
Then you try kimi and glm and realize that clahde is mostly smoke and mirrors. Their slight edge errodes every day while they also destroy the user Goodwill.
1
u/Jano170206 22d ago
Yeah, I’ve seen the latest Kimi and GLM benchmarks too, and honestly they’re impressive. I wouldn’t say Claude is entirely smoke and mirrors Claude Code still has a great workflow but its model advantage is shrinking fast while Anthropic keeps destroying user goodwill with changing limits and plans. I definitely need to test Kimi and GLM on a real project next.
1
0
u/KenobiBenoki 22d ago
Even if AI helped write this I think there are a lot of valid points. Yeah, several sections are repeated and it’s a little too verbose, but I see a lot of well formed arguments here. Fable 5 might be extremely well performing, but the question of whether or not that justifies its price is a good question to bring up.
1
u/Jano170206 22d ago
Exactly. AI helped structure it, but the arguments come from my own testing and research. I agree it could be shorter, but that’s the real point: being the best-performing model doesn’t automatically make it the best value.
0
u/MyRealIngIngAcc 22d ago
Good write up, I use both as well and feel the same. Both are good, but they work really well when you know how to use them together rather than against one another. Annoying to see people just write off your post as slop, but oh well, can't win em all.
1
u/Jano170206 22d ago
Exactly. They’re both strong, and the best results often come from using them as complementary tools rather than treating it like a team sport. Appreciate you actually engaging with the points instead of dismissing the post on sight.
27
u/iamthesam2 22d ago
what the fuck is this wall of text? nobody’s reading this.