Quick answer: use Opus. As of September 22, 2026, Anthropic says Claude Opus 5.5 "performs at the level of Claude Fable 5.1 on most work", and it costs 60% less per token.
It sits inside your Pro and Max limits. Fable still runs on paid usage credits on Pro and is capped at 50% of your weekly limits on Max.
I'm used to switching models between Fable and Opus, and Fable was always the upgrade. Now it's the opposite: Fable is the exception you have to justify.
This page was updated September 22 for that launch. The launch itself is covered in Opus 5.5 vs Fable.
Anthropic's own numbers and your plan now point in the same direction.
My rule on the Claude picker, since September 22: we're gonna use Opus now.
The picker has too many names, and Opus 5.5 is the one to leave ticked
Open the model picker in the Claude desktop app and the top of the list reads Fable 5.1, Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5 and Haiku 4.5. Under them sit an Effort control and a More models menu.
Then ChatGPT starts shouting Sol and Astra at you from the next tab over, and if you want that particular headache sorted, Astra vs Fable does it.
When you have ten models to pick from, it is just too much. What the hell is Sol. What is Astra.That is my own picker on September 22, 2026, with Opus 5.5 ticked and Effort on Medium. Notice Anthropic's own labels still pitch Fable 5.1 "For your toughest challenges" and Opus 5.5 "For complex tasks".
The label has not caught up with the launch page. Opus 5 has not gone anywhere either: Anthropic's pricing page now files it under legacy models.
Effort is how hard Claude thinks before it answers: raise it and you get more reasoning and spend more of your limit, lower it and you get a faster, cheaper answer. It matters as much as the model name, and it shows up again at the end of this page.
So here is the compression. Until September 22 I told you to learn two names: Opus for the work, Fable for the thinking. Now it is Opus 5.5 by default, and Fable only when you can say why. Everything else is detail.
I did the four names in a minute on camera, before Fable 5.1 landed:The 60-second version, from my Shorts: Claude's 4 models in plain English (and the one you're wasting).The answer in one table: what each plan actually gets
Read this before you click anything. The model rows come from Anthropic's pricing page and the Max cell's 50% wording comes from their Fable support article. Both were first read September 18, 2026 and checked again September 22, after the Opus 5.5 launch.Free
Pro ($20/mo, $17 annual)
Max (from $100/mo)Sonnet
Yes
Yes
YesHaiku
Yes
Yes
YesOpus
No
Yes
YesFable
No
Usage credits
50% of weekly limitsUsage credits available
No
Yes
YesTwo cells in that table are the whole page. Fable on Pro reads "Usage credits", not a checkmark. Fable on Max reads "50% of weekly limits", not "unlimited".
None of the rows moved on September 22. Opus 5.5 landed in the same Opus row, so Pro and Max get it inside their limits, and the Fable cells are exactly where they were.
Anthropic also said it is "increasing five-hour usage limits on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans", with no numbers, plus a rate limit reset "which you can now save and use whenever you choose."
On Pro, Fable is a paid add-on wearing an included label
Here is the sentence that every "Fable is on all paid plans" summary stops one line short of.Anthropic's headline is accurate: "Claude Fable 5 and Claude Fable 5.1 are available on all paid plans (Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise)." If Fable itself is new to you, what Claude Fable is covers the model rather than the billing.
Then the detail. For Pro plans and standard Team seats: "Fable 5 and Fable 5.1 aren't included in your plan's usage limits. You can use them with usage credits, which let you pay for usage beyond what your plan includes."
Available is not the same as included.
If you are a $20 subscriber clicking Fable expecting it to come out of the allowance you already pay for, you are about to meet a paywall, and page one of Google does not warn you.
There was a one-time credit for eligible Pro and Team standard seats when Fable 5 moved to usage credits in July 2026, and Anthropic is explicit that there is no equivalent for Fable 5.1.
There was also a promotion that gave subscribers up to 50% of their weekly subscription limit on Fable 5 at no extra cost.
Per the same support article, it ended on July 19, 2026, and it never applied to Fable 5.1. If you read a guide saying Pro gets 50% of its limits on Fable, you are reading something written before that date.
On Max, the 50% is a ceiling and not a bonus
The Max rule gets restated online as a perk. It is a cap.
Anthropic: "You can use up to 50% of your weekly usage limits on Fable models at no extra cost. They draw from your plan's regular weekly usage limits and use them faster than other Claude models."
Fable does not come with its own tank. It drinks from yours, faster than anything else does, and once half the week is gone that is the end of the free part. After that, Anthropic says you can keep going on usage credits or switch models.That is my own account on September 18. Max 20x, and a usage credits balance sitting there as the paid-on-top lane for exactly this situation. Card details are blurred, the mechanism is not.
Here is what the ceiling feels like in practice. One day into my week I was already at 20%, and Fable is most of why. I use Opus heavily as well, and I do not use anything below it.That meter capture is from September 5, 2026, not today. It is what a real Max week looks like when Fable is in the rotation. The full mechanics live on Claude usage limits explained.
Nobody publishes how much faster Fable burns, including Anthropic
I want to be blunt about this because the internet is full of confident numbers.
Anthropic says Fable uses your limits "faster than other Claude models" and, in their model guide, that it "uses the most of your rate limit". Their ladder is: Haiku lightest, Sonnet moderate, Opus heavy, Fable heaviest.That table is as of September 18, so it still names Opus 5, and the guide had not been updated for Opus 5.5 when I checked on September 22. That is the whole published guidance. No multiplier. No "Fable is 5x Opus".
Anthropic has not said where Opus 5.5 sits on that ladder either. The token price is lower, but how that shows up on your meter is not published, so I am not going to tell you Opus 5.5 uses less of your week than Fable.
So my "a day in and I am at 20%" is a dated personal observation on Max 20x with my particular workload. It is not a rate, and you should not plan your month around it.
Even Claude's own tooling cannot keep this straight
If you find this confusing, you are in good company.
On July 20, 2026 a Max subscriber going by tobowers filed issue #79412 on the Claude Code repository with a title that says everything: "/model shows Fable 5 as credits-only (€0.00) on Max plan, while /usage shows Fable covered by plan (5% of weekly limit)."
In the same session, the picker told him "Fable 5 runs on usage credits, you have €0.00 in credits" while /usage reported "Current week (Fable): 5% used."
His own read: "The Current week (Fable) bucket is a plan-usage allowance that resets on the weekly cycle, i.e. Fable is included in my plan and I'm 5% into it."
He was right, and the tool was telling him two opposite things at once. The issue is marked as a duplicate and I can see no Anthropic response on it, so I am not going to claim it was confirmed or resolved.
My rule now: use Opus, and make Fable earn it
This is what I get asked about most, and it flipped on September 22.
The new rule is one line. We're gonna use Opus now.
If Opus 5.5 is better all around, it makes literally no sense to use Fable as of now.
Do you want to pay more money for something less? It doesn't make sense, right?
My Claude Code log has the switch: Opus 5.5 saved as my default for new sessions on September 22. That is not me retiring Fable. It is Fable losing the default spot.
I even caught myself thinking my Fable allowance on Max was a separate bucket. It isn't. It is a cap of up to 50% inside the same weekly pool as everything else.
Anthropic's developer guide says the same thing in drier words: "Most workloads start with Claude Opus 5.5." It only sends you to Fable 5.1 if Opus 5.5 at its top effort settings (xhigh or max) still falls short on demanding reasoning or long-horizon agentic work.
That guide is written for people building on the API, but the order translates. Turn the effort up on Opus 5.5 before you reach for Fable.
Anthropic still describes Fable as being for "your largest, most critical projects: long, complex tasks Claude works through with fewer check-ins", and it takes longer to answer. Next to the developer guide, that makes the exception narrow: a long, demanding job where Opus 5.5 at its top effort already fell short.
And I know it will flip again. Fable's gonna become the big dog eventually, when they release Fable 5.5 or whatever they call it. I bet they have a stronger model out there already, testing and testing. That is my prediction, not anything Anthropic has announced.
Until September 22, my rule was: Fable plans it, Opus makes it
For four days this page said the opposite, and I meant it. On September 18 my rule was Fable for planning and orchestrating, Opus for producing the thing once the engine is built.
In my words that day: "So I use it a lot for planning and thinking, big stuff." And for content: "You're not gonna use Fable to create a tweet, you're just gonna use Opus."
For planning work I would rather have run Fable at medium effort than push Opus 5 to high or max. That was a preference, not a measurement, and it was about Opus 5. Opus 5.5 is a different model, and Anthropic puts it at Fable 5.1's level on most work.
One part of the old rule still stands. I do not trust my own judgment in the moment, so I put the routing in a rules file so it happens every time instead of whenever I remember. If you find yourself deciding model-by-model, you will default to the expensive one when you are tired.
Why I do not just use Sonnet
Every page like this gets a comment saying just use Sonnet. Here is the honest answer to that.
The thing that degrades is not the paragraph. It is the number of round trips.
Do research on a cheaper model and you get high-level research. Which means you go back. "This is not what I asked for." "You are going in the wrong direction." And you churn.
That churn is invisible in a price comparison and expensive in a real week. When I do not want to waste time, and I want a partner smart enough to actually think with, I reach past Sonnet.
Until September 22 that meant Fable. Now it means Opus 5.5. Fable earns the burn only when Opus 5.5 at its top effort still falls short on long, demanding work, which is Anthropic's own escalation rule.
Which is also the honest counter-argument to my own rule: if your work does not involve holding a complicated system in your head, you will never feel this, and Sonnet will be fine.
Anthropic's consumer model guide still recommends Sonnet as the default for anyone unsure, and it is the only strong model on the free plan.
The other reason page one is not helping you
Every comparison ranking for this question prices it in API tokens. Second Talent's model roundup is a good example, and a fair one: "Reach for Fable 5 when the task is the hardest you have and the cost of a wrong answer is high", alongside a price of "$10 input and $50 output per million tokens".
That was a fair answer to a different question, and it was written about Fable 5, before Opus 5.5 existed. Here are the list prices from Anthropic's pricing page on September 22, 2026:Per million tokens
Input
OutputOpus 5.5
$4
$20Fable 5.1
$10
$50Opus 5 (now listed as legacy)
$5
$25Fable 5.1 used to be twice the price of Opus 5. Against Opus 5.5 it is 2.5 times the price.
You do not buy tokens, though. On Max you have a subscription and a percentage that goes down; on Pro you have a subscription plus a credit balance that Fable draws against.
Either way, "2.5 times the price per million tokens" means nothing when your real currency is how much of Thursday you have left.
So which one should you pickIf you are on Free: neither. You have Sonnet and Haiku, and Sonnet is good. See the Claude free plan.
If you are on Pro at $20: use Opus 5.5 and stop there. It is inside your plan, and Anthropic puts it at Fable 5.1's level on most work. Fable is a paid extra, so check your credits before you click it, not after.
If you are on Max: Opus 5.5 by default. Fable only for a job where Opus 5.5 at its top effort already fell short, and watch the weekly meter, because half your week is the cap.
If you write or create for a living: Opus. Fable costs 2.5 times as much per token, runs slower, and will not make your sentences better.
If you are designing a system, not using one: until September 22 this was the case for Fable at medium effort. Now start on Opus 5.5 and turn the effort up first. Fable is the fallback if that still falls short.
If you genuinely cannot decide: Opus 5.5 if you pay. Anthropic's consumer guide still says Sonnet, and Opus vs Sonnet is that fork if you are on the fence.Two other decisions sit next to this one. If the question is really which plan to be on, Claude Pro vs Max answers it with the same weekly-allowance logic.
And the Claude Guides hub is the map for everything downstream.
Common questions
Is Fable included in Claude Pro?
Not inside your plan's usage limits. Anthropic's support article says Fable 5 and 5.1 are not included in Pro's usage limits and that you use them with usage credits, which let you pay for usage beyond what your plan includes. Anthropic's pricing table marks Fable on Pro as "Usage credits".
How much Fable do I get on Max?
Up to 50% of your weekly usage limits at no extra cost. That is a ceiling inside your existing allowance, not additional capacity, and Fable draws from that pool faster than other Claude models.
What happens when I hit the Fable ceiling?
You can keep using Fable on usage credits, or switch to another Claude model to stay inside your plan's limits. Those are the two options Anthropic lists.
How much faster does Fable burn than Opus?
Anthropic does not publish a figure. They rank rate-limit use as Haiku lightest, Sonnet moderate, Opus heavy and Fable heaviest, and say Fable uses the most. Any specific multiplier online is an estimate.
Should I use Fable or Opus for writing?
Opus. As of September 22, 2026, Anthropic says Opus 5.5 performs at the level of Fable 5.1 on most work, and it costs 60% less per token. Fable is slower and eats your weekly allowance faster, and a post or a tweet does not need it.
Which Claude model should I pick if I do not want to think about it?
Opus 5.5 if you pay for Claude. Anthropic's developer guide now starts most workloads on Opus 5.5. Its consumer model guide still names Sonnet as the default and had not been updated for Opus 5.5 as of September 22, 2026. Save Fable for jobs where Opus 5.5 at its top effort still falls short.
Is Fable better than Opus?
Not on most work, as of September 22, 2026. Anthropic says Opus 5.5 performs at the level of Fable 5.1 on most work and beats it on every row of its launch table.
Fable is now the fallback when Opus 5.5 at top effort falls short on long, demanding jobs. It costs 2.5 times as much per token.
Is Opus 5.5 better than Fable?
On most work it is at least level, per Anthropic. Opus 5.5 scores higher than Fable 5.1 on every row of Anthropic's launch table, such as 66.4 vs 55.8 on Terminal-Bench 4.0.
It costs $4 and $20 per million tokens against $10 and $50. That is most work, not every job, and Anthropic publishes no usage-limit comparison.
Where this comes from
The plan rules are Anthropic's pricing page and Fable support article, read September 18 and again September 22. The Opus 5.5 claims are Anthropic's launch page and developer guide, read the day it shipped.
The account screenshots are my own Max 20x plan, dated. I haven't measured Opus 5.5's burn against Fable, and Anthropic publishes no number.
Correction log: what this page has said, and whenSeptember 18, 2026. Published with the rule "Opus for the work, Fable for the thinking": Fable at medium effort for planning and system design, Opus for producing the work.
September 22, 2026. Anthropic released Opus 5.5 and said it performs at the level of Fable 5.1 on most work. Replaced the rule with "use Opus, and make Fable earn it" and kept the old one above as dated history. Swapped the September 5 picker screenshot for a September 22 one, re-dated the plan table (no rows changed), moved the per-token gap from 2x to 2.5x, rewrote the writing, default and "Is Fable better than Opus?" answers, and added "Is Opus 5.5 better than Fable?"Published September 18, 2026. Updated September 22, 2026 for Opus 5.5, with the dates in the correction log above.
Quick answer: ChatGPT Work is the mode that hands you a finished file instead of a reply. It is for longer, multi-step jobs that end in a document, spreadsheet, deck, report or Site.
It is still rolling out, and it draws on the same usage pool as Codex. Open it when the output is a deliverable. Stay in chat when the output is an answer.
Chat asks, Work delivers. That's my read on Work, and the part nobody leads with is what the delivery costs you.
Chat asks, Work delivers, and Codex is a third thing
OpenAI splits the three by job, and their own wording is the cleanest definition on the internet right now.Experience
What OpenAI says it is for
What you get backChat
Ask questions, search, brainstorm, or get quick conversational help
An answerWork
Research a topic, analyze information, or create a document, spreadsheet, presentation, report, or Site
A finished fileCodex
Write or debug code, run tests and commands, review changes, or work with a repository
Changed codeVoice
Talk naturally with Work or Codex in the desktop app and ask it to start or coordinate tasks
A running taskThe plainest way I can put it: Work is a chat with hands. It can actually edit your files, open things, delete things. If you have used Claude's file-handling mode, it is the same shape of tool.
lifeandwork.blog, one of the small sites ranking on this exact framing, says it the same way: "In chat mode, it behaves like a conversational partner for ideas, questions, and quick explanations. In work mode, it becomes a structured assistant for drafting, planning, reviewing, and managing tasks."
OpenAI's own two pages disagree about whether Work is free
I went looking for a clean answer to "which plan has it" and did not find one. I found two OpenAI properties saying different things on the same day.
OpenAI's developer docs, read September 18, 2026, open with this: "ChatGPT Work and Codex are included in your ChatGPT Free, Go, Plus, Pro, Business, Edu, or Enterprise plan."OpenAI's help centre, read the same day, says Work is available on ChatGPT web and mobile for eligible paid plans, and in the desktop app when it is included for your plan and workspace.
Free is in one list and absent from the other. I'm not going to pick a winner and call it settled. I can't tell which page is stale, and every other article on this confidently picks one of the two.
What both agree on is the part that actually explains your experience: Work is still rolling out. The help centre says it is gradually rolling out to eligible accounts, and that if you do not see it yet, your account may not have access yet.
So if Work is missing from your ChatGPT, you have not done anything wrong and there is no setting to find. Check your own account, not a pricing table. That goes for this page too. Trust what's in front of you.
One practical note before you go upgrading: new sign-ups and upgrades to the ChatGPT Pro $200 plan are currently paused. Our AI plan tracker follows that sort of change.
Where Astra sits, and why your usage vanishes
Every capability tour skips this section. It's the most useful one on the page.One sentence from OpenAI's own page does most of the work: "Plus plans include GPT-6 Astra in ChatGPT Work and Codex."
If you're on Plus, that changes how you should look at Work. It's more than a different way to ask.
On the $20 plan, Work and Codex are the two surfaces where the heavy model reaches you, and ordinary Chat is not one of them. Which plan gets Astra where is Astra by ChatGPT plan, so I won't redo it here.
The line that matters for this page comes next: "Astra can use your allowance faster than GPT-5.6 Sol. How much usage you get depends on the task, input and output size, reasoning settings and Fast mode."
That is OpenAI saying, in their own words, that the model you pick moves the meter. They do not publish a multiplier, and neither will I. Any "Astra burns 5x faster" number you find online is someone's estimate. The detail lives on Astra usage limits.
What I can add is what it's like to use. Astra burns fast enough that I changed my habits. I use it every day, I have run out of usage more than once, and I will not put a firm percentage on it because it swings with the task.That is my own usage and billing pane from September 5, 2026. The meter is a real number, and it goes down while you watch.
Here is what I actually hand to Work
The rule I use is embarrassingly simple: if it is a question, it is chat. If it is a job, it is Work.
Quick question, one answer, done? Chat. "There's a deal on this TV, which one should I get?" That is a chat question and it would be a waste of an agent.
Building something, reviewing my own system, going through my analytics, pulling my YouTube live data apart? That is Work. In my case a lot of that runs through Codex specifically, because my work ends in files and scripts, but the shape is the same.
The test is the output. If what you want back is a file, open Work. If what you want back is a sentence, stay in chat.That is the Work composer on my own account on September 10, 2026, with the model chip showing what is loaded. It is the thing you will actually be looking at, and no competitor page shows it to you.
The first job I would hand it, on camera:The 60-second version, from my Shorts: What to hand ChatGPT Work first (OpenAI's own advice).The expensive lesson: I tried to build a Pokemon game
Here's the honest part, because a capability tour won't give you one.
I pointed Astra at building a Pokemon-style game. It got somewhere. It did not get close to finished. And it ate a serious chunk of my usage doing it.That screen is real and it is as far as it got.
Could I have done it better? Yes, and you can learn from my mistake. I was inefficient. I got too creative, I went all over the place, and I never gave it tight direction.
If I had said "clone the basic thing and keep it simple" I would have spent a fraction of the usage and got further.
This doesn't mean "Work is bad at games". It means Work spends real money-equivalent on vague instructions. Chat doesn't, because chat is not out there doing forty steps on your behalf while you watch.
Give Work a scoped job with a named output. Save the exploring for chat.
TechRadar ran the opposite experiment, handing Work a pile of life-admin chores, and their headline verdict was that it handled them like a pro. That matches what I've seen. Give it a boring job with clear limits and it does well.
When to stay in chat
Every page about Work lists what it can do. This is the other list.
Stay in chat when:You want an answer, not a file.
You are still figuring out what you want. Doing that thinking in Work gets expensive.
The task is one step. An agent that plans, checks and revises is extra work you pay for.
You are on Plus and the job does not need Astra-grade reasoning. OpenAI's own guidance is that Astra moves the meter faster.
You just want speed. OpenAI's framing for Chat is "fast, conversational assistance and everyday questions", and that is still the right tool for most of the day.And no, regular ChatGPT is not going away. OpenAI's FAQ answer is one line: "The fast, familiar Chat experience is still available." On desktop you switch with the toggle at the top of the page. On mobile it is the dropdown at the top of the screen.That is the chat-side picker on my account, and it is a different set of choices from the Work composer further up this page. It's the same subscription with two different menus.
Work vs Codex vs Claude's version, in one tableWhat it is for
Where it runs
Go deeperChatGPT Work
Documents, spreadsheets, decks, reports, Sites
Web, mobile, desktop; local files in the desktop app only
This pageCodex
Code, tests, commands, repositories
CLI, IDE, web, desktop, iOS
Codex vs Claude CodeClaude's file mode
The same shape of job on Anthropic's side
Desktop and web
Cowork vs ChatGPT WorkOne note on that last row: Anthropic has folded Cowork back into Claude itself, with their own docs now carrying the line "Claude Cowork is now just Claude." The feature is still there. Only the product name went away.
So should you open WorkIf you are on Plus and have never opened it: do, once, on a job with a clear deliverable. Work and Codex are also where Astra reaches you on that plan.
If you cannot find it: you are not missing a setting. It is still rolling out.
If you are on Free: check before you assume. OpenAI's docs list Work as included on Free and OpenAI's help centre does not, so your own account is the only reliable answer. Either way you have Codex, which is on every ChatGPT plan, covered on Codex vs Claude Code.
If your usage keeps vanishing: it is probably the model, not the mode. Read Astra usage limits and get deliberate about when you reach for the big one.
If you mostly ask questions: stay in chat and stop feeling behind. Work is for a different kind of job.The Claude Guides hub has the equivalent map on the Anthropic side if you run both like I do.
Common questions
What is ChatGPT Work mode?
Work is an agent mode inside ChatGPT for longer, multi-step tasks that end in a finished deliverable. OpenAI describes it as researching a topic, analyzing information, or creating a document, spreadsheet, presentation, report or Site. Chat, by contrast, is for quick conversational help.
Is ChatGPT Work free?
OpenAI's own two pages disagree, as of September 18, 2026. The developer docs list Work as included on Free, Go, Plus and up. The help centre says eligible paid plans. It is also still rolling out, so check your own account rather than either page.
Why can I not find Work in my ChatGPT?
Because it is still being rolled out. OpenAI's own wording is that Work is gradually rolling out to eligible accounts and that availability will continue to expand. If it is missing, your account may simply not have access yet.
Does Work use more usage than chat?
Work follows the same usage structure as Codex, so it draws on the same agentic allowance. The larger variable is the model: OpenAI says Astra can use your allowance faster than GPT-5.6 Sol, without publishing a rate.
Can Work open files on my computer?
Yes, in the desktop app, where you open a local folder or project and grant access only to the files a task needs. Work on web and mobile cannot directly access files on your computer.
Where this comes from: OpenAI's own ChatGPT Work and Codex help article, read and screenshotted September 18, 2026, two days after OpenAI updated it. I pay for ChatGPT and use Work and Codex daily. The Pokemon game and the usage screens are mine, taken September 10. No usage multiplier, because OpenAI publishes none. Last reviewed September 2026.
Quick answer: open Codex first, because it costs nothing to find out. Codex is included on every ChatGPT plan including Free, per OpenAI's Codex help article.
Claude Code is not on Claude's free plan at all and starts at $20 a month, per Anthropic's pricing page. The comparisons ranking for this question lead with benchmarks and tend to say both tools cost $20. Neither of those helps you, and the second one is wrong.
This page answers it in both directions, so whether you searched Codex vs Claude Code or Claude Code vs Codex, the decision below is the same one.
My rule on coding agents: Codex decides your first night, your folders decide your second week.
The money answer: Codex is free tonight, Claude Code starts at $20
Most people just need this part, and page one of the search results skips it.Codex
Claude CodeFree plan
Included
Not includedEntry price
$0 on a ChatGPT Free account
$20/mo (Pro), or $17/mo billed annuallyWhat the price buys
More usage, not access
Access itselfAlso on
Go $8, Plus $20, Pro from $100, Business, Enterprise
Max from $100OpenAI's Codex help article, updated in September 2026, puts it in one sentence: "Codex is included across ChatGPT plans, including Free and Go. Usage limits vary by plan."Anthropic's pricing page tells the other half of the story. The Free tier lists chat, web search, file creation, memory, connectors and Artifacts. It does not list Claude Code. Claude Code appears one column over, under Pro.So the answer to "which do I try first" comes down to money, not benchmarks. One of these you can open tonight for nothing on an account you already have. The other one starts at twenty dollars.
Both of these were built for engineers, so here is the honest test of whether you are one
Before you pick, answer three questions. They take a minute and they will save you a weekend.Can I try it tonight for $0? Codex yes, Claude Code no.
Do I want something opening and changing the actual files on my laptop? Claude Code does exactly that, including your version history. Codex can too, and it can also run the job in an OpenAI-managed cloud sandbox instead, so with Codex the question is which mode you picked.
Is the thing I am trying to do actually a software job? Not "could a programmer do it faster", but: does the finished thing end up being a working program?If you answered no to the third one, a coding agent is probably not the tool you need yet, and the last section of this page says where to go instead.
Michael Crist wrote the closest thing to a guide for people in exactly this spot, and he is honest about the first hour: "Every time it asked to do something on my computer, I'd Google the command just to make sure it wasn't going to break something."
I'm not knocking him. That's the right instinct, and it's why question two matters more than any benchmark on page one.
Where Codex genuinely wins
It costs $0 to find out. That's a bigger deal than it sounds. You don't have to decide whether a coding agent is for you before you're allowed to touch one.
It has more ways in. Codex runs in a terminal, in a VS Code extension, in a web app, in an iOS app and in a desktop app.
Claude Code has fewer front doors, and its reputation is still terminal-first even though the Claude desktop app now reaches it. If the command line is what scares you, Codex gives you more ways to put it off.
The voice lane is real. OpenAI documents ChatGPT Voice as a live voice interface to Work and Codex in the desktop app, where you can speak, interrupt naturally, and coordinate tasks.
That part keeps surprising me. You can actually talk to it instead of typing, and I like it better than how I work on the Claude side.
The $20 goes further. That's just what I see from running both every day, not a published figure. I'm not going to put a number on it when OpenAI and Anthropic don't publish one.
What I can point to is the published part: on ChatGPT the $20 buys you more usage, and on Claude the $20 buys you access at all.
Where Claude Code genuinely wins
Codex being free does not make it the better tool, and this is the section the "just use the cheap one" crowd skips.
It works on your actual files. Claude Code runs on your own machine with access to your real folders and the version history of your work. When the job is "change this thing that already exists on my laptop", that's exactly what you need.
It is the one I build in. Building an app, building something custom, refining a tool I already use: that is Claude Code for me, every time. I use the terminal because I am used to it.
You can see it working. That sounds like a preference, not a feature, until the week it saves you. The next section is why.
Why I still need to see the folders
No comparison page can tell you this one, because it only shows up after a few weeks.
When you can't see the folders, the mess piles up without you noticing. You ask for research, the AI makes a folder and files it away being helpful, and you never look. Do that fifty times.
It is like a room. It just starts adding stuff, and next thing you know you cannot walk through it.
Right now my own root is cluttered with next-steps files I did not ask for and do not need. So I am strict about spring cleaning and constantly deleting markdown files. That habit came from being able to see what was accumulating in the first place.
With Codex, a lot of people just never look. You can open the folder directly and find a pile of markdown files and subfolders sitting there. It gets messy.
Now here's the honest part: if you are not building complex things, you probably do not need to see them. This is my habit, formed by the kind of work I do.
If you are running a handful of tasks a week, the mess never gets big enough to matter, and Codex staying out of your way is a feature rather than a risk.
You do not have to pick one
Every page ranking for this treats it like you have to pick a side forever. You don't.
I pay for both and run them against each other daily. Codex is where I do research and day-to-day work. Claude Code is where I build. They just do different jobs for me.
Nothing stops you paying for one and using the free tier of the other. If you already pay for ChatGPT, you already have Codex. Trying it costs you nothing but an evening.
This is what running both looks like on my screen:The 60-second version, from my Shorts: Claude Code and Codex together: how I 10x my output.If neither of these is your tool, the answer is the chat window
If your finished work is a document, a spreadsheet or a decision, not a working program, this section is for you. I'd rather say it plainly than sell you a subscription.
Claude's graphical, file-handling mode was called Cowork, and Anthropic's own docs now carry the line "Claude Cowork is now just Claude." No terminal anywhere. That is where most people doing non-software work should start: Cowork vs Claude Code sorts it in two minutes, and the Claude Guides hub covers what comes after.
Rich Holmes at Department of Product watched this audience arrive: "Despite originally being designed for developers, now, an increasing number of non-technical folks like product managers, designers and execs are dabbling with Claude Code to make use of its powerful abilities."
Dabbling is the right word. Dabble for free first.
So which one should you openIf you already pay for ChatGPT: open Codex tonight. You have it. There is no decision to make.
If you pay for Claude Pro or Max and not ChatGPT: you already have Claude Code. Use it, and know that the free Codex tier is there whenever you want to compare.
If you pay for neither: make a ChatGPT Free account, open Codex, and spend one evening. Twenty dollars is a fine thing to spend after you know what it does, and a bad thing to spend before.
If the terminal is the actual blocker: neither. Start in Claude's chat window and come back to this page in a month.
If your job actually ends in code: run both. They have different strengths and you will find yours faster by using them than by reading about them.For the next question after this one, which model to actually pick once you are inside Claude, see Fable vs Opus. For the automation version of this argument, Codex vs n8n covers when a coding agent beats a workflow tool, and my real Claude Code usage is what a month of it actually costs me.
Common questions
Is Codex free?
Codex is included on every ChatGPT plan. OpenAI's own help article, updated September 2026, says Codex is included across ChatGPT plans, including Free and Go, and that usage limits vary by plan.
You can open it tonight on an account you probably already have. The limit is how much you get, not whether you get in.
Is Claude Code free?
No. Claude's pricing page lists Claude Code under Pro, which is $20 per month billed monthly or $17 per month billed annually. The Free plan does not include it. Max, from $100 per month, includes it as well.
Which is better for a non-coder?
Open Codex first, because it costs nothing to find out. But both were built for software work. If your job does not end in code, the tool you actually want is the chat window with a file-handling mode, not a coding agent.
Do these tools touch the files on my computer?
Both can. Claude Code runs on your machine against your real files and folders. Codex documents both local and cloud workflows, so with Codex the answer depends on which surface and mode you are using. Know which one you are in before pointing either at real work.
Can I run both?
Yes. I pay for both and use them for different jobs. If you already pay for ChatGPT you already have Codex, so comparing them costs you nothing extra.
Where this comes from: OpenAI's Codex help article and Anthropic's pricing page, read and screenshotted September 18, 2026. I pay for ChatGPT and Claude Max and use both tools every day; the habits are mine and carry no measured numbers. No benchmark scores on purpose, they change with every version. Last reviewed September 2026.
Quick answer: Claude Slides drafts a presentation inside a normal Claude conversation and exports it to PowerPoint or PDF. It launched September 16, 2026, and since October 8 it is out of beta and on every plan, including Free. You do not need Pro, and you never needed Max.
Someone on Free with a deck due? Starting free, man, let the pain talk. If they keep hitting the limit, then they'll know.
My guess is that it gets you a competent, plain deck quickly. I have not run one through it, so treat that as a guess and not a test.
What it will not give you is taste. That part I am confident about. They'll give you a generic slide, basic at best.
The guides telling you to buy Max are out of date
You may have been told that making slides with Claude requires Max, Team, or Enterprise.
That was true of a different mechanism. The upgrade advice came from the Claude for PowerPoint add-in, which needs a paid plan.
Claude's plain in-chat file creation has always included Free. Anthropic's own wording is that code execution and file creation "is available to all Claude users (Free, Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise)." So a free user could always ask for a .pptx and get one.
Claude Slides is a third thing, and since October 8, 2026 it has no paid gate.Plan
Claude Slides
In-chat .pptx file creationFree ($0)
Yes
YesPro ($20/mo, or $17/mo annually)
Yes
YesMax (from $100/mo)
Yes
YesTeam
Yes
YesEnterprise
Yes, on by default from October 15, 2026
YesPlan rows read off Claude's pricing page on October 10, 2026. The in-chat file creation row comes from Anthropic's file creation article, and the Enterprise date from its artifacts help article.
So if you are on Free and you need a deck tonight, you are not locked out. You get the new editing surface too, and the old ask-for-a-.pptx route still works.
What Claude Slides actually does
From Anthropic's announcement, the specifics:It drafts a presentation from your prompt, inside a conversation, with no separate mode to open.
You can edit the slides directly rather than re-prompting for every fix.
You can present straight from Claude.
You can download it as PowerPoint or PDF.It is on by default on Free, Pro, Max, and Team. Enterprise follows on October 15, 2026, and owners can switch it on earlier.
And it spends your normal usage. Building a deck is not free of your session limits, which matters more than it sounds if you are on Free or Pro and iterating on twenty slides.
Slides or Design? Anthropic has not made this clear
I want to flag this honestly instead of inventing a clean answer.
There are now two overlapping presentation surfaces. Claude Design renders presentations as interactive HTML in a canvas and lets you refine them in real time in the conversation.
It exports to .zip, PDF, PPTX, and standalone HTML, plus integrations with Adobe, Canva, Gamma, HubSpot, Miro, Netlify, and Vercel. Claude Slides drafts presentations and exports to PowerPoint or PDF.
Anthropic's own Claude Design help article tells you to use Claude Slides to make presentations, while also documenting Design's own presentation flow.
I could not settle this from the app, and here is why:My Max 20x desktop app, September 18, 2026: a Design entry, no Slides entry. The rollout hadn't reached me.
So where it stands: they overlap, Anthropic's docs are unclear right now, and anyone telling you they have cleanly separated is guessing. I will update this section when the feature reaches my account and I can look at it directly.
What I can show you is Claude Design on a real job, because I rebuilt my own website with it. Same taste argument applies to a deck:I walk through that one on camera in Claude Design + Codex = The Real Website Rebuild Workflow (14 min).Why you might not have seen it at launch
At launch, Anthropic rolled the merged Claude out to Pro and Max first, on web, desktop, and mobile, "over the coming weeks."
I pay for Max 20x and did not have it two days in. That is not a bug and there is no setting to flip. Fuller version in what happened to Claude Cowork.
The thing Claude Slides cannot do for you
Now the part I actually care about.
Would I hand this to someone at work who is not a designer and has a presentation due tomorrow?
No.
My expectation: better than that person would have managed alone, and still a generic slide. I will find out for certain when it reaches my account.
And here is the trap. Somebody looks at the plain output and decides to fix it.
They start adding.
The design gets uglier and the deck does more harm than it would have done boring. Keep it basic and minimal, because the moment you overdo it you are making things worse, not better.
The tool does not give you taste.
Put it this way. Take a person who really understands decks, who knows what a given audience needs to believe, who has built presentations by hand a hundred times, and who has never opened Claude in their life. Then take someone who uses Claude every day and does not understand slides at all.
The first person wins. Comfortably.
My rule on this: the tool raises your floor. It does nothing for your ceiling. That goes for every one of these generate-a-thing features, and slides is where it shows up hardest.
I know this because I am the second person in some other category. Ask me about slides and I am average.
Tell me about thumbnails, I'll have better taste. I know which examples to reference, I know why one works. Same tool, completely different output, and that comes down to the person using it more than the prompt.
So if the deck matters, the tool is a drafting assistant and a human with judgment still has to own it. If the deck does not matter, which is most decks, this is a real time save and you should use it.
A deck looks like a document, but it runs on taste. That is why the tool helps you less here than it does on a report.
Honestly, I barely make decks
So you can weight my opinion properly: I don't really do decks. I'm not gonna present no PowerPoint to random people.
Where I do use slide-shaped things is LinkedIn carousels, and my method is not a deck tool at all. For carousels I just stack multiple images together and PDF it. I tell Claude how to assemble it rather than designing it by hand.
If I made a real deck with Claude Slides, it would be about how to actually use these apps, or an honest walk through the pain points of something like Cowork. Teaching material, not a pitch.
Where decks really matter is when you are a founder pitching, or an investor presentation, or anything where a room of people is deciding something based on how clear you were. That is when the form matters. For most internal status updates, nobody was ever going to look at it twice.
Who should use itDeck due tomorrow, not a designer, nobody is auditing it: yes. Use it, keep it minimal, do not over-decorate. This is the best case.
The deck decides something that matters: use it for the first draft, then get a person with real presentation judgment to own the final. Do not ship the raw output.
On the Free plan with a deck due tomorrow: build it on Free. Pay $20 for Pro only if you keep hitting the limit.
You want to know whether to open Claude or ChatGPT for this: that is the sibling decision, and I keep it current at Claude vs ChatGPT for PowerPoint.
You need a document rather than a deck: Claude Docs shipped the same day.Go try it on your own work and see where it breaks.
More on using Claude in a normal job sits under Claude guides, and plan prices stay dated on the AI plan tracker.
Frequently asked questions
What is Claude Slides?
Claude Slides is a presentation feature launched September 16, 2026. It drafts a deck inside a normal Claude conversation. You can edit the slides directly, present straight from Claude, or download the result as PowerPoint or PDF. Since October 8, 2026 it is out of beta and on every plan, including Free.
Is Claude Slides free?
Yes. Since October 8, 2026, Claude's pricing page lists Claude Slides on every plan, including Free. It counts toward your usage limits, so Free gets the feature but less room. The older in-chat .pptx file creation is also on Free.
Do I need Claude Max for Claude Slides?
No, and you do not need Pro either. The paid-plan gate you may have read about belongs to the Claude for PowerPoint add-in. Claude Slides has had no paid gate since October 8, 2026, and plain in-chat file creation, where you just ask for a .pptx, has always been available to all users including Free.
What is the difference between Claude Slides and Claude Design?
Anthropic's own help content is currently ambiguous about this. Claude Design renders presentations as interactive HTML in a canvas and exports to a wide set of formats, while the Design help article also tells you to use Claude Slides to make presentations. Treat them as overlapping surfaces until Anthropic separates them clearly.
Can Claude Slides export to PowerPoint?
Yes. Anthropic's announcement says you can download a Claude Slides presentation as PowerPoint or PDF. Claude Design exports more widely, including .zip, PDF, PPTX, and standalone HTML.
Is Claude Slides still in beta?
No. Anthropic took the beta label off on October 8, 2026. Try it on a deck nobody is going to audit and find out where it breaks on your own work.
Where this comes from
Anthropic's announcement, the Claude Design help pages and the pricing page, read September 18; plan rows re-read October 10. The September 18 screenshot only shows it had not reached my Max account.
I have not made a deck in Slides yet, so the taste argument is my opinion. When I do, I post what came out, ugly parts included.
Correction logSeptember 18, 2026. Published with Slides on Pro and up in beta and not on Free, as the pricing page showed that day.
October 10, 2026. Corrected the plan lines. Anthropic took the beta label off Slides on October 8 and put it on every plan, including Free.Published September 18, 2026. Updated October 10, 2026 for the Free plan change, with the details in the correction log above.
Quick answer: Claude Docs is a real document that lives inside your Claude conversation, launched September 16, 2026. In Anthropic's own words, you ask for a document and you and Claude write it together. Since October 8, 2026 it is out of beta and on every plan, including Free.
Is free a big deal? I think Google Docs is free. So I don't even know what the big deal from that is. I think the main lever probably is that it's integrated with AI.
Does it replace Google Docs? No. What would I write in it? I think resume is probably one of the ones, man. It kills the copy-paste step between Claude and your editor. The document still usually ends up in Word or Google Docs, because Anthropic built export paths to those tools, not away from them.
First, which "Claude Docs" do you mean?
This is why your search results look wrong. Three different things are wearing this name right now.What you typed
What you might have meant
Where it lives"claude docs"
Anthropic's developer documentation
claude.com/docs"claude docs"
The connector that lets Claude edit your Google Docs
A Claude connector"claude docs"
The new document product, launched September 16, 2026
Inside a Claude conversationAlmost every page currently ranking for this query is about the second one. They were written before the third one existed.
This page is about the third one.
What Claude Docs actually is
A living document you write with Claude, created inside the conversation instead of in a separate app.
What Anthropic actually says, quoted rather than paraphrased: "Ask for a document, and you and Claude write it together." You can edit it directly.
Beyond that:It starts private, and you can share it with colleagues.
You can open it in Google Docs or Microsoft Word, per Engadget's write-up, which says you "can also export and open it in Google Docs or Microsoft Word if you want."
It is on every plan, including Free, and out of beta since October 8, 2026.That is a shorter list than you will find elsewhere, and the shortness is the point. Anthropic has not documented more than that, which is the subject of the next section.
What is not confirmed, and why I am telling you instead of guessing
A lot of coverage of this launch describes Claude Docs as a full collaboration suite: several people editing simultaneously, threaded inline comments like Google Docs, and Claude itself leaving comments in the margin.
That would be the interesting part. Claude as a participant in the margin rather than a text generator is a different interaction model, and if it ships that way it is the headline.
I went looking for it in the primary sources and could not find it. Anthropic's announcement does not spell out simultaneous multi-person editing, an inline commenting system, or Claude authoring comments.
Engadget's hands-on write-up does not mention comments either, and lists exactly two export destinations, Google Docs and Microsoft Word, not the longer format list floating around.
So: unconfirmed. Not debunked, just not documented where it should be.
I would rather hand you a shorter list that holds up than a longer one that reads well. If you are deciding whether to move team document work into Claude this week, decide on what is confirmed, and check Anthropic's help pages yourself before you count on the collaboration features.
I will update this section the moment the behavior is documented or I can see it on my own account.
What plan you needPlan
Claude DocsFree ($0)
YesPro ($20/mo, or $17/mo billed annually)
YesMax (from $100/mo)
YesTeam
YesEnterprise
Yes, on by default from October 15, 2026Read off Claude's pricing page on October 10, 2026. The Enterprise date is from Anthropic's Claude Docs help article.
Two things people get wrong here.
The first: this was never a Max perk. On September 18 the pricing page showed it on Pro and Max together, and since October 8 there is no paid line at all. The paid tiers buy usage, not the feature.
The second: the launch rollout was staged, starting with Pro and Max, which was backwards from what a team would expect from a collaboration feature. The help article now lists Team as available and on by default.
There is also no separate allowance for it. In Anthropic's words, "Claude Docs counts toward your plan's usage limits," so a long document on Free runs out sooner than it would on Pro.
I could not open it, and I pay for the top tier
I am not going to tell you how it feels to use. Here is why.
I pay $200 a month for Claude Max 20x, which puts me in the first rollout wave. Two days after the announcement, this is my composer:My own Claude desktop app, September 18, 2026. No Docs. Anthropic said "over the coming weeks" and meant it.
So every fact on this page comes from Anthropic's own documentation, and none of it comes from me using the product. When it lands on my account I will test it and update this page with what actually happened, including whether the Word export survives the trip.
I would rather tell you that than write a review of a screenshot.
Would this replace where I write? Honestly, no
Here is my read, and it is a read, not a verdict on the product.
A document living inside Claude helps with two things: seeing it laid out properly, and getting it out cleanly. Both real.
I think md files are still the way to go. It's not really solving a problem I have.
My writing comes out of Claude Code as markdown files. Markdown is still the way to go for me, because the file is mine, it lives in my folder, and nothing owns it. A document inside a chat app is a nicer view of something I already have in a better format.
The one thing I would actually make in it is a resume. That is the shape that fits: a document you fiddle with visually, care about the formatting of, and export. Being able to edit a resume in there and push it out to Word is legitimately useful.
So: cool, and I could live without it. The point is, it removes a paste step. It does not replace your editor.
If you already live in Claude all day and you hate that paste step, this is worth real money to you. If your writing has a home somewhere else, it does not move in.
And before you move anything, check what the tools you already pay for can do inside the editor you already use. I did that one on camera:The 60-second version, from my Shorts: The AI you already pay for is hidden inside Docs, Word, and Notion.The objection your employer will raise
Somebody is going to ask whether work documents should live inside Claude at all. Fair question. Here is where I land.
I would put real documents in there. I would put my resume in there without thinking about it. I would upload a mortgage statement and ask whether I am losing money on it.
Two things I would do first.
Turn off data sharing. Both Claude and ChatGPT have a setting that controls whether your conversations get used to improve the models. Turn it off. They will experiment with your data if you let them.
Keep the sensitive stuff out. Health records, government ID numbers, anything you would not email. That line is not paranoid, it is just sensible.
Past that, I think the fear is overweighted. I've sent confidential documents to the wrong person, to actual people. That is the mistake I actually make, and it is the one that has actually burned me. With AI at least it's more controlled.
People are doing their taxes with these tools now. If you spend your life braced for the model to go rogue, you are not going to get much done. More wins than losses, in my experience, and leaked data is happening every day to people who never uploaded anything.
Your job may disagree, and your job gets a vote. If you work somewhere with a written AI policy, check it before you put a client document in a new feature. That policy may also be out of date for a different reason, which I covered in what happened to Claude Cowork.
Who this is forYou draft documents with other people and hate the paste step: this is the strongest case. Try it on one real document.
You write alone into a system you already like: skip it for now. It is a nicer text box, not a new capability.
You are on Free and want to write something real, like a resume: just try it. Free has the feature now. Pay $20 for Pro only if the usage limit keeps stopping you halfway through.
You need a deck instead of a document: that is Claude Slides, which shipped the same day.
You mostly work in spreadsheets or meeting notes: the comparisons that actually match your job are Claude vs ChatGPT for Excel and Claude vs ChatGPT for meeting notes.More on using Claude in a normal job is collected under Claude guides, and I keep plan prices dated on the AI plan tracker.
Frequently asked questions
What is Claude Docs?
Claude Docs is a document that lives inside a Claude conversation, launched September 16, 2026. In Anthropic's words, you ask for a document and you and Claude write it together. You can edit it directly, it starts private, you can share it with colleagues, and you can open it in Google Docs or Microsoft Word.
Is Claude Docs free?
Yes. Since October 8, 2026, Anthropic lists Claude Docs on every plan, including Free, and it is out of beta. It counts toward your plan's usage limits, so Free gets the feature but not Pro's room. Pro is $20 a month, or $17 a month billed annually.
Does Claude Docs replace Google Docs?
Not for most people. You can open a Claude Doc in Google Docs or Microsoft Word, which means the document often still ends up somewhere else. It replaces the copy-paste step between Claude and your editor. It does not replace the editor your company runs on.
Is Claude Docs the same as the Claude documentation?
No. Three different things share that name right now: Anthropic's developer documentation at claude.com/docs, the Claude connector that edits Google Docs, and this new in-conversation document product. Most search results still point at the first two.
Can two people edit a Claude Doc at the same time?
Anthropic has not documented that clearly. The announcement says a document starts private and you can share it with colleagues, but it does not spell out real-time multi-person editing or an inline commenting system. Several write-ups describe richer collaboration than the official wording supports, so treat those claims as unconfirmed.
Should I put real work documents in Claude?
That is a judgment call, not a fact. Turn off the setting that lets your data be used for training, keep genuinely sensitive material like health records and government ID numbers out, and decide for yourself where the line sits. Check your employer's AI policy before putting client material in a new feature.
Where this comes from
Anthropic's announcement, the pricing page and Engadget's write-up, read September 18; plan rows re-read October 10. I cut the collaboration claims other articles make because I could not find them in Anthropic's own words.
The screenshot is my Max account on September 18. I have not used Claude Docs yet, so nothing here is a hands-on verdict.
Correction logSeptember 18, 2026. Published with Docs on Pro and Max in beta and not on Free, as the pricing page showed that day.
October 10, 2026. Corrected the plan lines. Anthropic took the beta label off Docs on October 8 and put it on every plan, including Free. The pricing page and the help article now agree.Published September 18, 2026. Updated October 10, 2026 for the Free plan change, with the details in the correction log above.
Quick answer: your Cowork tab is gone and your work is not. On September 16, 2026, Anthropic merged Cowork into Claude. It is one app now, and Claude decides for itself whether your request is a quick reply or a long multi-step job. Your chats, projects, artifacts, connectors, and skills are all still there.
Three modes became two. You talk to Claude, or you point Claude Code at a folder. That is the whole map now.
Here is the part to know first: you probably cannot see any of it yet, and that is normal. They're blending it in, which I agree is easier, man. It's just less stuff.
Nothing was deleted, so stop looking for a backup
The first thing most people want to know is whether their work is gone. It is not.
Anthropic's own wording is that when you open the app, "everything is where you left it: your chats, projects, artifacts, connectors, and skills."
That is a merge, not a shutdown. VentureBeat's headline said Anthropic was "killing off" Cowork. The capabilities did not go anywhere. The tab did.
What actually changed on September 16
Anthropic shipped four things at once:The merge. Cowork and chat became one Claude. You no longer pick which tab a task belongs in.
Claude Docs. A document that lives inside the conversation. You ask for it, and you and Claude write it together.
Claude Slides. Presentation drafting you can edit, present from Claude, or download as PowerPoint or PDF.
Claude Design, which now works from inside any conversation with your existing context and skills.All three of the new surfaces are in beta on paid plans.
The reason given is refreshingly plain. Per TechCrunch's report, customers "often struggled to choose the right tab for the right task." So Anthropic removed the choice.
Why you probably cannot see it yet
The rollout is staged, and this is where I can show you something instead of telling you.
Anthropic says the merged experience is reaching Pro and Max plans first, on web, desktop, and mobile "over the coming weeks." Team and Free follow. Enterprise admins get at least 30 days notice.
I pay $200 a month for Claude Max 20x, which puts me in the first wave. Here is my desktop app on September 18, two days after the announcement:My Claude desktop settings, September 18, 2026 (app 2.2553.1): Code and Cowork still separate. The merge hadn't reached me.
And the composer's plus menu on the same account, same day:Same account, same day. No Docs. No Slides. "Over the coming weeks" means what it says.
So if you read the announcement, opened Claude, and found the old layout staring back at you, you are not doing it wrong and you are not missing a setting.
Announcement day and availability day are different days. Almost nobody covering this launch said so.
Three doors became two
The map used to be: chat answers, Cowork does your office work, Claude Code builds software.
Now it is two doors. The way I would put it: Cowork did not die. It stopped being a place you go.What you want
Where you go nowA quick answer, a draft, a summary
Claude. Just ask.A long multi-step job across your connected tools
Claude. It routes itself.A document or a deck
Claude. Docs and Slides appear in the conversation.Something editing real files in a real folder on your machine
Claude CodeIf you were using Cowork for office work, you do not have to relearn anything. You have to unlearn something, which is easier. You describe the outcome and stop choosing the container.
I made the old map on camera before it changed. Watch it as history:The 60-second version, from my Shorts: There are 4 different Claudes. Here's which one does what.Is this better or worse if you do not code?
I think it's better, man. You just have less options.
I used Cowork occasionally for research on my own vault, not as a daily driver. Losing it as its own place cost me nothing. What it bought everyone is fewer decisions.
Fewer options is the feature here. It is less stuff to be wrong about.
I say the same thing about model pickers. When you open an app and there are ten models in a dropdown, you are not going to pick well.
You are barely trying the thing and suddenly you have six choices and no idea what Sol is, or what Astra is, or why you would want either.
That is not power. That is a tax on people who just want the work done.
Where this should end up is one model with an effort dial, auto-switching on its own, doing the cheap thing for cheap tasks and the expensive thing when it matters, more precisely than you would have picked. That would be the best feature: just one model. Cut the rest.
The merge is a step toward that. For the everyday user it means more capability with less to get wrong, and honestly, it is just less stuff in the way.
So when do you still open Claude Code on purpose?
Claude Code is the one separate product left, so here is exactly when I open it.
I open Claude Code when I am building something. An app, a plugin, something custom, a real change to how my video editing works. Not when I want a document.
The difference is what it can touch. Cowork always felt like a thing that makes documents. Claude Code can edit my folder. It has the more advanced capabilities and it is a more seamless experience once you are in it.
I also need to see the folders. If I cannot see the file tree, I feel like I am going to end up with a lot of trash in there.
Honest caveat: I am not the right example here. As daunting as the terminal looks to a lot of people, I've used it for over a year. I'm just used to it at this point.
Ironically I am the one who finds the app awkward. If you do not code and you do not want to look at folders, the merged Claude now handles the long jobs by itself. That door is open and you do not need to walk through the other one.
If you want the longer version of that fork, I keep it updated at Claude Cowork vs Claude Code.
The bit nobody is telling you: your company's AI policy just expired
If you work somewhere with a written AI policy, there is a decent chance it names Cowork, or names modes, or says something like "do not use agentic modes for client data."
That policy now describes a product that does not exist.
Stephen Smith made this argument in a piece called "Claude Stopped Asking Which Mode You Want. Your AI Policy Just Expired." (his post), and he is right, but he wrote it for the people who own the policy.
Here it is for the person who has to live under it: the mode you were told to avoid is no longer a mode you can choose. Claude routes itself now.
You are not breaking the rule on purpose. The rule stopped mapping to the interface. Worth raising before somebody notices it the hard way.
What this costs and who can get itPlan
The merged Claude
Docs, Slides, DesignFree ($0)
Follows later, no date given
NoPro ($20/mo, or $17/mo billed annually)
First wave
Yes, in betaMax (from $100/mo)
First wave
Yes, in betaTeam
Follows later, no date given
Yes, in betaEnterprise
At least 30 days notice
Yes, admin controlledRead off Claude's pricing page on September 18, 2026. Anthropic has not given a date for Team or Free.
One thing worth knowing before you go make a deck: Docs, Slides, and Design work counts against your normal Claude usage limits. There is no separate allowance for it.
What to read nextThe Cowork pages on this site that still describe a separate product are being corrected in order. Start with Claude Cowork vs Claude Code, which is the fork that survived.
If you want the new document surface specifically, I wrote up Claude Docs and Claude Slides separately.
For what the old Cowork was actually good for, and which of those jobs the merged Claude now absorbs, see Claude Cowork use cases.
Everything else about using Claude in a normal job sits under Claude guides.
Prices and limits move. I keep them dated on the AI plan tracker.Frequently asked questions
What happened to Claude Cowork?
On September 16, 2026, Anthropic merged Cowork into the main Claude app. Cowork is no longer a separate place you open. Claude now decides on its own whether your request needs a quick answer or a long multi-step job. Your existing work was not deleted.
Did I lose my Cowork projects and files?
No. Anthropic's announcement says that when you open the app, everything is where you left it: your chats, projects, artifacts, connectors, and skills. The merge changed where the work happens, not whether the work still exists.
Why can't I see the new Claude yet?
The rollout is staged. Anthropic says the merged experience is reaching Pro and Max plans first, on web, desktop, and mobile over the coming weeks, with Team and Free following and Enterprise getting at least 30 days notice. I pay for Max 20x and still had the old layout two days after the announcement.
Is Claude Code going away too?
No. Cowork is the mode that dissolved. You are left with two: Claude, which you talk to, and Claude Code, which you point at a folder. Claude Code is still a separate product with its own settings.
Do I still need Claude Code if I don't code?
Probably not. The merged Claude handles long multi-step jobs by itself now. Claude Code earns its place when you want it editing real files in a real folder on your machine, which is a builder's job, not an office job.
Are Claude Docs and Claude Slides free?
No. Claude's pricing page lists Claude Design, Slides, Docs, and Claude Code as available on Pro and Max and not available on Free. All three of the new surfaces are in beta on paid plans.
Where this comes from
Anthropic's own announcement and pricing page, read September 18, plus TechCrunch's report. The screenshots are my Max account the same day, and all they prove is the merge had not hit me yet.
I have not used Docs or Slides, because I could not open them. When I can, I will say so here.
Published September 18, 2026. Last reviewed September 18, 2026.
Quick answer: Grok's free plan is a standing plan, not a trial, and xAI's own table makes it more capable than the internet thinks.
That table checks the Grok 4.6 model, image generation and Grok Build under Free, and dashes video generation, Expert mode and Grok Bot. SuperGrok at $30 is where Grok Bot appears, and that is the line that should actually make you pay.
My rule on Grok pricing: free stops working the day you want something that runs without you.
Published September 10, 2026. Every price and row verified on xAI's pricing page the same day.
Quick decisionYour situation
RungQuestions, current news, real-time search
Free, $0You want a working page or app built for you
Free. Build is on every planYou want still images
xAI's table checks Free. The detailsYou want video or Expert mode
SuperGrok Lite, $10You want a bot running on a schedule
SuperGrok, $30You will run bots daily and hammer the meter
SuperGrok Plus, $100. My verdictYou want the swarm-of-agents tier and top usage
SuperGrok Heavy, $300 (sign in to see it)Where xAI actually prints the prices
Nobody screenshots this part, because most people writing about Grok are not paying for it.My own SuperGrok subscription screen, captured September 11, 2026. Four priced tiers, including the two that the public pricing page refuses to put a number on. "Current Plan" is my $100.Same screen, Business tab. SuperGrok Business is $30 per seat. Enterprise is the only rung that genuinely has no number.
And here is what a logged-out visitor gets at the same company:xAI's pricing page, captured September 10, 2026. Three numbers. Scroll down and Lite and Heavy appear as columns in the comparison table with buttons and no price; those buttons hand you to grok.com, where the number only prints once you sign in.Plan
Price
Where the number is visibleFree
$0
Real-time web and X search (limited), voice mode, connectorsSuperGrok Lite
$10/mo
Signed-in subscription screen only. Apps from a single prompt, Expert mode, image and video, increased limits at regular speedSuperGrok
$30
The cheapest published rung with Grok Bot accessSuperGrok Plus
$100
Everything above, plus 1080p video and much higher usageSuperGrok Heavy
$300/mo
Signed-in subscription screen only. Highest usage at the fastest speed, X Premium+ included, dedicated supportBusiness
$30/seat
Signed-in subscription screen, Business tab. Team seats, RBAC, consolidated billingEnterprise
Not published
Contact sales, custom RBACOnly Enterprise has no number, and that one is honestly a sales conversation. Everything else is priced. You just cannot see four of the seven prices without an account. That is why every roundup you have read quotes $30 and $100 and stops.
Every free-tier limit number on Google describes a system that died in June
If you search this question you will be told the free tier gives you 10 requests every 2 hours, per AI Toolbox, or 2 prompts every 2 hours, per AI Tool Discovery, or 3 to 5 images a day, per Arsturn.
Those three numbers cannot all be right, and they sit on the same results page.
I am naming them because they are not scams, they are just stale. They are all describing message counting, which xAI retired in June 2026.
The most honest competitor on this question is DataStudios, which structures the comparison properly. Even there, check the limit numbers against the date.
What replaced it: paid plans get one weekly compute pool spent across any Grok product, where different products drain it at different rates. Per xAI's FAQ, the free tier is not on that pool at all. Free keeps its own limits on Chat and Voice, and those reset on their own schedule.
xAI publishes no per-tier number for either system. I wrote the full mechanics up in how Grok's usage limits actually work, and it is the page to read before you buy anything.
The free plan can build you a working website
Nobody has caught up to this yet.
Since August 19, 2026, Grok Build is on every plan. You describe a site or an app in the chat window, it builds a working version live, and there is a Publish button at the end that puts it on a link you can send someone. On the $0 plan.
So the free tier will build and publish a business's landing page, and will not make you a five-second video.
If that seems backwards, it is. But it is real. What Grok Build actually is has my own session and the finished page it produced.
What free actually gets you, row by rowRead the Free column straight down. September 10, 2026.Row
Free
What it means for youGrok 4.6
Yes
Same headline model as the paid tiersImage generation (Imagine)
Yes
Stills are inVideo generation
No
This is the first real wallGrok Build
Yes
Websites and apps, published to a linkGrok Bot
No
Standing jobs need $30Real-time web + X search
Limited
The good part, rationedExpert
No
No longer-thinking modeI had this wrong until I read the row: free is not stuck on an older model. xAI's table checks Grok 4.6 across every column including Free. What free is missing is Expert mode, video, the bot, and headroom, not the model itself.
The really good free feature is real-time web and X search. It is rationed, and it is still the reason to keep a free Grok account open even if you pay somebody else for everything else. Grok vs ChatGPT is where that comparison lives.
What the $30 buys, and the buried line is Grok Bot
The SuperGrok card lists the Grok 4.6 model, connectors, higher rate limits across all features, Expert, SOC 2 compliance, and image and video generation.
And one more: Grok Bot access.
That is the line that changes the math, because Grok Bot is not a better chat window. It runs standing jobs on its own cloud machine on a schedule, and it is metered separately from your chat pool.
You are not paying $30 for a chatbot. You are paying it for a chatbot plus something employee-shaped.
If you have not met it, start with what Grok Bot is, then the 12 jobs I run.
I pay $100, and I did not buy it for the chatMy actual billing screen, captured August 28, 2026. SuperGrok Plus, $100 a month.
Nobody else writing about this ladder is showing you an invoice, so here is mine and the reasoning behind it.
Did I over-buy? I do not think so, but not for the reason you would guess. I did not buy $100 for a better chat window.
I bought it for Grok Bot, and the bot pool is a different meter from the chat meter. The bot meter is the one that moves in my account. The chat and Build meter barely does.
I am deliberately not putting percentages on that. I could not get a clean capture of the usage pane while writing this, and this site does not print numbers it cannot show you. When I can screenshot the meter, it goes on the page.
What it means without the numbers: if I used Grok the way most people use Grok, I would be wasting most of what I pay for.
I also did not add this on top of everything. I funded it by downgrading one of the $200 coding subscriptions I was already paying for, which is the same trade I described in ChatGPT Pro vs SuperGrok Plus.
That was a bet on Grok Bot specifically, and two weekends in it is looking like a good bet. It is still early to tell.
So if you work like me, start at $30. Give it one simple job and watch what it does to your usage. If you outgrow it quickly, then upgrade. Studying a tool and using a tool are two different things, and $30 buys you the second one.
The full $100 argument is its own page: is Grok worth paying for.
One trigger per rung
Not a feature grid. The specific moment each rung becomes the right one.Rung
What puts you on itFree, $0
Questions, news and real-time search, plus building a page you can publishSuperGrok Lite, $10
It sits between Free and $30, and adds video, Expert mode and single-prompt appsSuperGrok, $30
You want Grok Bot, or you outgrow the usage fastSuperGrok Plus, $100
You are running bots daily and babysitting a meter is costing you more than $70SuperGrok Heavy, $300
You want the swarm-of-agents mode, the highest usage and the fastest speedThe free-to-$30 trigger is the one that matters.
If you want a simple chat box for random questions, free is good enough. Take advantage of it. You might already pay for X and have some Grok usage bundled there already.
The moment free stops working is when you want to build something serious. A repeatable workflow. An automation. A thing that runs on a schedule. That is a different way of using the tool, and it starts at $30.
Two gotchas that cost people money
X Premium is not SuperGrok. Two subscriptions, two billing relationships. Paying X does not get you Grok Bot, Build headroom or the weekly pool. People double-subscribe by accident and then wonder why the features they read about are not there.
Check the price on the day you buy. These plans changed twice in six weeks, and I got caught too: this page had Lite and Heavy logged as unpriced until September 11, when I looked again and both had a number.
Check xAI's pricing page yourself, and I keep a dated changelog of these moves on my AI plan tracker.
Where this fits
If you are choosing between Grok and something you already pay for, that is Grok vs Claude or Grok vs ChatGPT. If the image question brought you here, Grok Imagine's free line is more interesting than it looks. If it was the app builder, Grok Build.
Everything I run day to day is on my Claude guides hub.
How I checked this: every price, row and gap comes from x.ai's pricing page read and screenshotted on September 10, 2026, plus xAI's own FAQ for the usage mechanics. The $100 account is mine and the billing screen is real. I have not used the free tier recently, so the free-tier description is xAI's published table rather than my own testing, and I have flagged the one row that corrected me. Last reviewed September 2026.
Quick answer: for still images, yes. xAI's own plan comparison table shows image generation checked under the Free column as of September 10, 2026, and video generation dashed.
The most widely cited paywall story is a January 2026 restriction on X itself, and the pages still carrying it have not looked at the pricing page in months.
My read on Grok Imagine: the stills are the free part, the video is the paywall, and nobody selling you an alternative wants you to know the difference.
Published September 10, 2026. Plan rows verified on xAI's pricing page the same day.
Quick decisionYour situation
What to doYou want still images and you pay nothing
Use it; xAI's table checks Imagine on FreeYou want video
That is the paid line, on every tier above FreeYou want 1080p video
That is the $100 tier, SuperGrok PlusYou want to know your limit
Nobody publishes one. Here is the meterYou are choosing a rung to pay for
Free vs SuperGrok, per triggerxAI's own table says images are on the free plan
This is the whole page, so I am putting the receipt first.xAI's pricing page, captured September 10, 2026. Image generation (Imagine): checked under Free. Video generation: dashed under Free, checked on everything above it.
So the stills are in, and the video is what you are actually paying for.
That single dash is worth more than the ten blog posts above this one on Google, because it tells you exactly which half of the product is behind the wall.
The widely cited January 2026 story happened on X
So why does the entire first page of search results tell you Grok Imagine is not free?
In January 2026, X restricted Grok's image generation and editing for non-paying users on X itself, after a backlash over what people were making with it.
Gulf News covered it at the time and noted something the aggregators dropped: people who were not paying could still reach Grok's image features through the separate app and website.
That detail got lost. "You cannot edit an image in an X reply anymore" became "Grok Imagine is paid," and the pages carrying that claim have been ranking ever since without anyone rechecking it.
Look at who is ranking for this question and you will see why nobody corrected it. Most of page one is either a post from before the change or a site selling you a different image generator, with the disappointment as the hook.
xAI's own pricing page contradicts itself, and you should know that
I am not going to pretend the answer is cleaner than it is.Same page, same day, scrolled up. The Free card lists four things. Images is not one of them. "Image and video generation" first appears on the $30 card.
So the comparison table says images are on Free and the plan card does not mention them at all. Both are on xAI's pricing page right now.
This is just my read. The table is more specific, because it splits stills from video row by row. The card is marketing shorthand for what the $30 gets you.
The card is not wrong that images get better above Free. It just is not the place to learn whether the free plan can make one.
Here is what I checked and what I did not. I read xAI's published table on the day of writing, on my own paid account, and I screenshotted it.
I did not create a free account, so I have not personally watched a $0 login press generate and get a picture back. If you are on free right now, you can settle it in ten seconds, and your ten seconds beats my guess.
What I would not do is trust a number. xAI publishes no free-tier image cap, so every "3 images a day" and "5 to 15 a day" figure you will find is someone's guess. xAI has not said it. Paid plans have run on one shared weekly compute pool since June 2026.
And here is the third contradiction, which cuts against me rather than for me. xAI's FAQ says the free tier keeps its own limits on "Chat and Voice" that reset on their own schedule.
It names Chat and Voice. It does not name Imagine. If you wanted to argue the free plan does not really get images, that sentence is your best evidence, and I would rather hand it to you than pretend the table is the last word.
What an hour on the paid version actually produced
I have a SuperGrok Plus account, so this section is the paid experience. I am not going to dress it up as a test of the free tier.
I typed one thing and got four.One prompt, four variations, with Generate More and Think Harder waiting underneath. The play button on each tile is the video path.
Four variations from one prompt changes how you work. Instead of tweaking one image and hoping, you just pick.
There is also a Discover surface, which is where you go to see what it can do before you know what to ask it for.Discover, same session. "Generate a cartoon" with no other direction.
It will not make you copyrighted characters. Ask for Mario and it refuses, which is the correct answer and also not a real limitation for anyone making a header image.
I will say the thing I did not expect to say: I used to think this was trash. It is not trash.
One is hands-free, the other is a control surface
This is what actually decides which tab you open, and I have not seen anyone else write it down.ChatGPT images
Grok ImagineHow you drive it
Describe it, it decides
Toggle settings, dimensions, elementsClosest comparison
An assistant
MidjourneyGood when
You want it handled
You know what you want and want to steerThe cost of that
Less control
More decisionsWith OpenAI you say it and it generates. It is more included, more hands-free, and that is a good experience when you do not want to think about it.
Grok Imagine goes the other way. You can select different elements, change specific things, and get very specific about dimensions. It almost feels like a Photoshop.
Neither of those is a criticism. They are just two different products for two different moods, so it comes down to which mood you are in.
Not everyone agrees with me, and here is who
I formed my impression in about an hour. People who spent longer with it landed in different places, and you should hear both.
TechRadar tested the image editing features and published the verdict in the headline: they are fun but will not replace Photoshop any time soon. That is a direct contradiction of my "almost feels like a Photoshop" reaction, and I am leaving it in rather than picking the quote that agrees with me.
We are describing different things. I meant the way you drive it feels like an editor, not a slot machine. They mean it will not do your actual retouching work, and they are right about that.
Notebookcheck filed it under "where AI brilliance meets mild trauma," which is about as accurate a summary of using this product as three words can be.
invideo put it as comparable to mid-tier specialist models on stills and trailing the premium options on motion. That matches the pricing table, which is a decent sign both are describing reality.
What flipped me, specifically
It was how intuitive and fast it felt, more than any one output.
The generation speed is the thing. It felt slightly faster than the OpenAI image model I normally use, and I did not time it, so take that as an impression rather than a benchmark.
What I can count is the output: 4 options where I expected 1. That changes how you use it, because you experiment instead of committing to one.
On raw quality, I will not oversell it. Compared against the newest OpenAI image model, which gets really precise on the fine detail like skin and wrinkles, Grok is not the precision winner. But it generates some flawless images, and the gap is much smaller than it was the last time I looked.
So I went from dismissing it to keeping it open in a tab.
Does it change my stack? Partly, and I will say where it does not
Yes, more than I expected, but not everywhere.It adds a real option for images. I thought the field was Nano Banana and OpenAI's image model. Grok has earned a place in that set.
It will not make my thumbnails. No reason to switch. What I use works, and thumbnails are the one place where I am not experimenting.
It might make blog images. A quick explanatory graphic, the kind of thing that is not worth a long session. That is the use case I would test next.
I will not be running it through a CLI. For me this is a browser tool, not part of an automated pipeline.If I am honest, I have not found the killer use case for it in my own work yet. It is on the radar now, which it was not last week. That is a real change, even if I am not switching over.
Where this fits
If your question is really about which plan to pay for, that is free versus SuperGrok, one trigger per rung, and the $100 question is answered separately.
If you got here from the app-building side of Grok, Build mode is the other thing that is also on the free plan. For how this sits against ChatGPT generally, Grok vs ChatGPT.
The rest of what I actually run is on my Claude guides hub.
How I checked this: I read and screenshotted xAI's pricing page on September 10, 2026, and used Grok Imagine on my own SuperGrok Plus account the same day. I did not test a free account, and I say so above rather than implying otherwise. Outside verdicts are linked to the publications that wrote them. Last reviewed September 2026.
Quick answer: Grok Build is a mode in Grok's chat window. You click the hammer icon under the message box, pick Build, describe what you want, and it builds a working website or app live in the conversation with a Publish button waiting at the end.
There is nothing to install. There is also a completely separate developer product called Grok Build that runs in a terminal, and that is the one Google shows you first.
My rule on Grok Build: prototype in whatever you already pay for, and never let one vendor own all of it.
Published September 10, 2026. Plan availability verified on xAI's pricing page the same day.
Quick decisionWhat you are trying to do
Where to goGet a one-page site or a small app without touching code
Build mode, in the Grok chat windowDay-job software engineering
The Grok Build CLI, or Claude CodeFind out whether your plan includes it
It does. Every plan, including freeWork out what it costs you
It draws on the shared weekly poolDecide whether to pay xAI at all
My $100 SuperGrok Plus verdictYou searched Grok Build and Google handed you a terminal
There are two products named Grok Build, and they are not versions of each other.
The one most search results describe is the CLI, announced May 25, 2026 as "a powerful new coding agent for professional software engineering and complex coding work."
You install it with a curl command. It runs in a terminal, plans before it edits, and works across a codebase. People who have put real hours into it rate it seriously. But if you do not write software, it is not for you.
The one you found in your chat menu is Build mode, announced two months later on July 28, 2026. xAI's own sentence for it: "There's nothing to install and nothing to configure, and you never have to touch the code unless you want to."
Same name. The first one needs a terminal. The second one just needs you to type a sentence.
If you are reading this because you clicked something in Grok and a preview pane opened, you want the second one, and the rest of this page is about that.
Your chat menu has five modes, not four
Every mode guide ranking on Google right now lists four: Auto, Fast, Expert, Heavy. Count the menu.My own session on September 10, 2026. Five modes, Build checked, on a SuperGrok Plus account. The prompt is sitting right there: "build a website for a local landscaping website."
Here is what each one is actually for:Mode
What it does
Gated?Auto
Picks between Fast and Expert for you
NoFast
Answers quickly, thinks less
NoExpert
Thinks longer before answering
Yes. xAI's table shows a dash under FreeBuild
Makes websites, apps, games and dashboards
No. Checked on all seven plan columnsHeavy
Runs a larger group of agents on one problem
Yes, and the most restricted of the fiveHeavy is the confusing one, because Heavy is both a mode in this menu and a plan tier. I am on SuperGrok Plus at $100 and I do not have Heavy mode.
I do have Build. The guides mix those two up when they tell you Build is an advanced feature you have to buy.
xAI does not publish a price for the Heavy tier, so I am not going to print one. All I can tell you is my own account: at $100 a month, I don't get Heavy mode and I do get Build.
One more thing you won't see in the menu: xAI's own FAQ now says "Grok Studio is no longer supported. Use Grok Build instead." If you are searching for Studio, this is where it went.
Build stopped being a top-tier feature on August 19
At launch, Build mode was an Early Beta limited to SuperGrok Heavy subscribers. That was true for three weeks, and it's why half the internet still says you need the top plan.
It stopped being true on August 19, 2026, when xAI published a follow-up post and the line that matters is: "Grok Build is now available on every plan, on the web and on mobile."
An announcement is not the product, so here is the pricing page on the same day.xAI's pricing page, captured September 10, 2026. Read the Grok Build row across all seven columns, then read the Grok Bot and Expert rows for contrast.
You can see the old gate in the reaction to the launch. @FFBuncho posted at Build Mode's announcement that you could publish an app to an xAI domain instantly with no domain contract, and was bummed that it looked like SuperGrok Heavy only for now.
That post was right when it went up. It stopped being true three weeks later, and that's the whole problem with searching this question.
The same August 19 update also added remixing other people's published apps, custom domains and GitHub export. Small sites like Basenor still carry the Heavy-only headline in their URL. That's not a knock on them. It just shows how fast this fact went stale.
What one prompt actually produced in my first hour
I typed one sentence: build a website for a local landscaping website. That is the whole prompt, redundant wording and all.
It read the workspace instructions, connected to a machine, loaded design and scaffold skills, and started building while I watched a preview pane fill in. Then I closed the browser by accident, came back, and it had finished anyway.The finished page. Note the Publish button top-left. The business, the address and the phone number are all invented by the model.
It named the business Rowan Hill, dated it to 1994, placed it in Dutchess County, wrote the headline "Ground that feels as if it has always belonged," and built a working nav that scrolls you down the page.
It also built a real form, not a picture of one, though nothing is wired up to receive what someone types into it.Name, phone, email, a service dropdown and a free-text field, from one sentence of instruction.
My reaction in the moment was "holy shit," and here's why. The output itself isn't that special. What got me was that the input was one careless sentence and the thing finished on its own.
I would not hand that landscaping page to a real business yet
No. It needs tweaking, and the tweaking is my fault, not the model's.
A one-sentence prompt gets you a one-sentence site. Steal the prompt I should have written instead:The brand: the exact colors, the logo file, real project photos.
The place: the town and the service area, named.
The benchmark: one or two competitors ranking first in Google Maps for that keyword in that town, and what those sites actually have.
The brief: what the client wants that the competitors do not do.
Then let it iterate, because the second pass is where it gets good.It is also one page. You scroll, you click the menu bar, it scrolls for you. That's fine for a demo, but it's not a business's website.
So as a demo, yes. As something you invoice for, not off one prompt. What it does change is how cheap it is to show someone a mockup, and that matters when you are pitching local businesses.
If that is the business you are in, the longer version of that pitch is selling AI builds to local businesses.
The other Grok Build is a terminal app for engineers
Briefly, because you may have landed here from a developer comparison.
The CLI is available to SuperGrok and X Premium Plus subscribers, runs interactively or headless, and runs multiple agents in parallel.
Composio put 50-plus hours into comparing it against Claude Code, and Analytics Vidhya ran the same comparison under the headline "I Tested Both So You Don't Have To." I have not run that head-to-head myself, so I am pointing you at people who did instead of faking a test.
I would ignore the SWE-bench numbers floating around this comparison. They come from the vendor and get copied between blogs without credit. And they won't tell you whether a landing page comes out right.
When I wrote this, the model behind the CLI was grok-4.6. Update, September 22, 2026: Grok 4.7 is out, and xAI's launch post puts it in the Grok Build CLI, Cursor and the API.
Grok Build usage limits: the same weekly pool as everything else
There is no separate Build allowance and no published Grok Build weekly limit.
Per xAI's FAQ, Build sits on the one shared weekly usage pool alongside API, Chat, Imagine and Voice, and different products drain it at different rates. xAI publishes no per-tier number for any of them, so anyone quoting you a Build limit is inventing it.
The free tier works differently: it keeps its own Chat and Voice limits that reset on their own schedule, separate from the weekly pool.
I wrote the full mechanics up separately, because it's the thing people get wrong most about this product: how Grok's usage limits actually work.
When to open Build instead of Claude Code
My actual rule, in the words I used out loud: choosing between these is like choosing between Macy's and JCPenney. They are more or less the same thing and it depends what is on sale.
What is on sale, for most people, is the ecosystem they already pay for.If you already pay for X Premium and a SuperGrok plan, Build is a no-brainer. You are not going to go buy a $200 Claude Code plan to do the thing you already have.
If you already pay for Claude Code or Codex, Build is your backup. When I run out of usage credit on Codex or Claude Code, I have Build sitting there for a dummy test or a throwaway prototype.
If you are picking one for serious work, I still think Claude Code and Codex are the two serious players. Lean on Claude Code when the copy has to be right; lean on Codex when the work is research-shaped.
If you are optimizing purely on budget, the interesting case is the top Grok plan. Instead of a $200 Claude Code plan plus a $200 Codex plan, one Grok subscription gets you Build, plus Grok Bot with its own separate usage pool, plus Cursor, which xAI's own Grok Bot launch post names alongside your Grok plan. That one's worth a real look.But here's what I care about more than the feature comparison: you would be living entirely in their ecosystem. That is too risky for me. Do not put all of it on one vendor, however good the bundle looks this month.
The gap between these tools is small enough that people make up personalities for them. What matters more is which company owns all your work if they change the terms.
Where this fits
If you are working out the plan question rather than the tool question, start with what free Grok actually gets you, then whether the paid tier is worth it.
If you came here from the image side of Grok, that is Grok Imagine, which shares this same weekly pool and has a very different answer on what free gets you.
Everything I run day to day lives on my Claude guides hub.
How I checked this: I used Build mode on my own SuperGrok Plus account on September 10, 2026 and screenshotted the session. Plan availability, mode gating and the announcement dates come from x.ai's own pages, read the same day. I have not tested the Grok Build CLI, and I say so where it comes up. Last reviewed September 2026.
Chris Alarcon 
