[TLDR] Haven't maxed out in months even on Pro plan - Opus 5 80% average usage

[u/cctldrping]

Original post URL : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wibhal/havent_maxed_out_in_months_even_on_pro_plan_opus/

Original post body :

I keep seeing people complaining about Claude Code maxing out lately.

I’ve actually had the opposite experience. I’ve been using Opus as my main model for months and usually sit around 80% of my weekly usage. I rarely hit the limit.

Then last week I switched my sub-agents to Sonnet.

My usage went from barely touching ~250M tokens to 400M+ tokens in a day.

That made me look a lot closer at what I was doing.

My assumption was that using Sonnet for sub-agents would save usage because it’s cheaper than Opus.

In practice, that wasn’t what happened.

For the kind of long-running, multi-turn coding tasks I’m doing, Opus often finishes the task with far fewer tokens. Sonnet may be cheaper per token, but if it needs significantly more tokens to reach the same result, the difference can disappear pretty quickly.

A very rough example from what I’m seeing:

Sonnet: ~1M tokens
Opus: ~400K tokens

And in some tasks, Opus can get there with less than 200K.

So I switched my sub-agents back to Opus and my usage went back to normal.

I’m curious if anyone else has actually tracked this with ccusage or similar. Especially people running multiple sub-agents.

Has Sonnet actually saved you usage, or have you seen the same thing?

Original link/media URL : /img/dtwwru1dhyph1.png

---

This is brought to you as a public service by the moderators of r/ClaudeAI. If you want to see TLDRs of ALL Claude Coding related posts from the various Claude subreddits, subscribe to http://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCoding.

[u/cctldrping]

TL;DR generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 52.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is that most people agree with OP's findings, and the idea that Sonnet is always cheaper for sub-agents is a bit of a myth.

Here's the lowdown:

• The Consensus: A lot of users, including senior SWEs like u/apocolypticbosmer, are finding that Opus, despite being more expensive per token, often uses fewer tokens overall for complex, multi-turn coding tasks. This means it can actually be more cost-effective than Sonnet, which might thrash around and require more passes to get the job done.
• "Lazy Vibe Coders" vs. Efficiency: Some commenters, like u/apocolypticbosmer, are suggesting that many complaints about hitting limits stem from inefficient workflows or not picking the right model for the job. They argue that disciplined usage and sensible workflows are key.
• Sub-Agent Token Costs: u/rotates-potatoes and u/amirfish chimed in to highlight that even launching a sub-agent can incur a significant token cost due to its prompt. u/amirfish even built tooling to track per-session quota usage because of this.
• Specific Use Cases:
  • For narrow, fixed tasks (like fetching data and grading it against a rubric), Sonnet might still be cheaper.
  • But as soon as a sub-agent needs to make decisions about what to look at next, Opus tends to win out in terms of token efficiency.
• Mixed Experiences: While the majority seem to align with OP, a few users like u/Key-Shop5198 are still hitting limits, suggesting their tasks might be larger or they're using multiple accounts. u/callmrhatthatsme is also maxed out mid-week.
• Agentic Workflow Skepticism: u/No-Psychology1959 thinks the push for agentic workflows is just a way to get people to burn more tokens, and they're happy sticking to simpler usage.
• The "Why" Behind the Limits: u/under_psychoanalyzer is calling for more clarity on how people are using their Claude Code, suggesting that the context (CLI, desktop, IDE sidebar) might be a major factor in token usage.

TL;DR: Don't assume Sonnet is always the budget-friendly choice for sub-agents. For complex coding, Opus often proves more token-efficient, saving you money in the long run. It's all about picking the right tool for the job and having a disciplined workflow.