Tabbit
ResourcesBlogModels
Tabbit LogoTabbit

Tabbit — The AI Browser that Works for You

Topics

  • AI Browser Resources
  • Agentic Browser Resources
  • Browser Downloads and Install Guides
  • Browser Comparisons
  • AI Browser Alternatives
  • Browser Productivity Resources

Popular Guides

  • AI Browser
  • Agentic Browser Download
  • Best AI Browser 2026: Top 9 Tested & Ranked
  • AI Browser Download
  • Free AI Browser
  • Best AI Browser 2026
  • AI Browser Comparison 2026
  • AI Browser for Windows
  • AI Browser for Mac
  • Chrome Alternative 2026

Events

  • Tabbit Skill Competition
  • KPOP SBTI Fandom Personality Test
  • Tabbit Campus Creator Program
  • fifi's Picks: AI Skills for Research Papers
  • User Survey

About

  • Tabbit Blog
  • Press & Media
English
简体中文English
Reviews and evidence

GPT-5.6 Sol · Community source · Personal experience

Reddit Codex Pro 20x: one Sol Standard allowance and API-equivalent log

On one Pro 20x account, a user cross-checked two reset windows with a CLI and corrected ccusage: 42,559 credits, estimated at about $1,702 Standard API equivalent; it is a subscription-budget log, not model quality or a universal quota.

Unverified: the original source could not be rechecked. Historical figures below are not current verified results.

Community sourcePersonal experienceEdited 2026-09-20

Test conditions

Model version
GPT-5.6 Sol Standard
Provider / client
One Codex Pro 20x account; local CLI and ccusage
Reasoning tier
Standard
Tools
Author's CLI and corrected ccusage; no fixed quality task
Task set
Subscription-credit measurement, not a fixed coding or knowledge task
Sample / repeats
One banked reset and one global reset, two windows from one account
Publication / collection date
Around 2026-07-26 / 2026-08-18
Traceable results
6,643 + 35,915 = 42,559 credits; about $1,702 equivalent; about 25 credits/$1

Key data and applicable tasks

Test environment

  • Account: One Codex Pro 20x account, using only GPT‑5.6 Sol Standard.

  • Measurement: The author used a CLI they wrote with Codex to count local tokens and cross-checked the results against a corrected version of ccusage; the two results matched.

  • Measurement windows: Measurements were recorded across two independent allowance cycles: one banked reset and one global reset about three hours later.

Inputs/configuration

  • The article measures subscription allowance and its Standard API equivalent, not model quality on a fixed coding task.

  • It records the usage percentage displayed by OpenAI, credits, local token measurements, and the dollar value converted at the official rates.

  • The author notes that older versions of ccusage overestimated usage by about 20% and that the corrected version must be used.

Result data

  • After the banked reset: 6,643 credits (13%).

  • After the global reset: 35,915 credits (67%).

  • Combined across both windows: 42,559 credits, equivalent to approximately $1,702 in Standard API usage.

  • Extrapolating from the percentages, a weekly Pro 20x window contains approximately 52,000–56,000 credits, with a midpoint of 53,600 credits, equivalent to about $2,144 in Standard API usage.

  • The observed conversion was approximately 25 Codex credits = $1 of Standard API usage; the author says this matches the official rates and the percentage dashboard within rounding error.

  • Based on this, the author estimates approximately $8,300–$8,900 across four weekly windows, or approximately $9,000–$9,700 in an average month.

Conclusion

This is a subscription-allowance record backed by local measurement and cross-checking, making it useful for estimating a Sol Standard spending budget. It does not say anything about Sol's task success rate, nor can one account and two resets be generalized to the allowance available to all Pro 20x users.

Limitations

  • It covers one account and a short observation period, and includes banked and global resets, so differences by account, time period, or reset policy cannot be ruled out.

  • There is no fixed task set, input prompt, toolchain, cache-hit rate, or per-task quality result.

  • Converting credits to API dollars depends on the product's internal measurement rules; the 25:1 ratio is observed only in this report and is not an independently verified official commitment.

  • The article's comment section contains different allowance experiences, further indicating that usage is affected by the task and harness.

Reproduction steps

  1. Use one clearly defined subscription tier and one model tier, and record the credits/percentage at the start of the window.

  2. Use a CLI to record input, output, and cached tokens, and independently verify them with the current corrected version of ccusage.

  3. Record regular, banked, and global resets separately; do not combine multiple windows into a single experiment.

  4. Convert to the API equivalent using the official rates for that day, while preserving the raw measurements and conversion formula.

  5. Repeat across multiple accounts and weekly windows, reporting the median, range, and task types.

Original evidence and data

  • The main post makes public the credits, usage percentages, totals, conversion values, and estimated ranges for both windows.

  • The author publicly explains the cross-measurement tools and the overestimation issue in older versions of ccusage, making this report more verifiable than a simple impression that the “allowance ran out very quickly.”

Applicability boundaries

  • Suitable as a starting point for subscription budgeting, allowance monitoring, and validating measurement tools.

  • Not suitable for comparing Sol's intelligence, code quality, or long-horizon Agent success rate with other models.

  • If the product's measurement, rates, or plan change later, the old report should be collected again.

Source excerpt or observation (short quote for compliance only)

The author summarizes their method as “controlled test using only one Pro 20x account”.

What this supports

  • Supports using one account's credits, reset windows, and API-equivalent conversion as a budgeting reference.
  • Supports preserving raw credits and the conversion formula to avoid ccusage-version error.

What this does not support

  • Does not support quotas, rates, or monthly forecasts for all Pro 20x users.
  • The 25:1 ratio is an observation, not an official commitment; quota, price, and availability require a fresh check.

Method, limits, and reproduction

The figures, task set, reasoning tier, and client conditions apply only to the listed source and collection snapshot. Different versions, harnesses, or providers must not be compared directly; undisclosed parameters remain unknown.

For a reproduction, fix the model version, provider or client, reasoning tier, tools, task-set version, sample count, and collection date, and record failures, retries, and human corrections. Full steps are in the source notes below.

Original source

Reddit r/codex · DaC2k26 · Original publication date 2026-07-26 · Site edit date 2026-09-20

Open original source

GPT-5.6 Sol

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol in Tabbit

Download the Tabbit client to check model access

Read the full analysis

Overview · English

GPT-5.6 Sol: Specs, Access, Changes, and the Risks That Still Matter

OpenAI's current GPT-5.6 Sol model page lists a 1.05M context window, 128K max output, reasoning controls, and a time-sensitive API price card. Here is what those facts mean for API, Codex, and browser users.

Related reviews

Lynkr ITSMBench: routing lowers cost while Sol's binary pass rate remains limitedLynkr routed Sol through pi on 89 enterprise IT-service tasks: 31% full-suite Pass@1, 35%/40% matched Pass@1/Pass@2, about $0.87–$0.90 per task, and 92–95% cache hits; many failures missed only a few assertions.Nate Herk: Sol costs less on creative builds, while Fable wins more blind selectionsNate Herk used the same /goal to compare Sol in Codex with Fable in Claude Code: Sol won the roughly seven-minute/$1 visual-object build, while Fable was selected for the bike game and scrolling site; refusals confounded the small API sample.OpenAI release note: Sol's official results on long-horizon, coding, and knowledge workOpenAI reports Sol at 53.6 on Agents’ Last Exam, near Fable 5 on the Intelligence Index, and 80 on the Coding Agent Index, plus 92.2% on BrowseComp and 62.6% on OSWorld 2.0; these are dated vendor results.Artificial Analysis: Sol's intelligence, coding-agent result, and cost per taskArtificial Analysis records Sol max at 59 on its Intelligence Index, about $1.04 per task, and 80 on its Coding Agent Index, with roughly 15,000 output tokens per task; models are paired with complete harnesses such as Codex.Design a verifiable multi-agent workflow with the Responses APISeparate judgment from deterministic processing, then combine programmatic tool calls, parallel subagents, and prompt-cache boundaries into a long-running workflow whose cost, latency, citations, and failures can be reviewed.Configure Codex for a million-token context and auto-compactionThe source shows config.toml and one-session CLI examples for the model ID, a 1,000,000-token context budget, and a 900,000-token compaction threshold; confirm client support and keep a rollback configuration before editing.Deliver code with prediction, planning, review, and verificationSplit long-running coding into prediction, planning, implementation, adversarial review, and independent verification, checking the plan, tests, and stop conditions item by item; this is a commenter’s personal workflow, not Codex’s default configuration.Give Codex an Occam rule against over-engineeringAsk a coding agent to choose the simplest implementation that satisfies demonstrated requirements, reuse or remove existing code before adding layers, and keep clear module boundaries; the rule is community guidance, not a guarantee.