After trying it out for few week wouldn’t pay for it at all.

They lock you in behind proprietary coding harness and don’t give you option to use your own with their models.

Pi + gpt5.5 is better experience in every aspect, at least for me. Harness is better, if you miss any feature you just prompt the model to implement it as extension to Pi. Gpt5.5 feels like more solid model than opus ATM

I also don’t feel like discussion about clankers is ever very productive as it is very subjective. In the same manner as I wouldn’t pay for Claude I would never spend money on hardware from Apple and going into that discussion feels like same type of flame war waste of time but looks like I am starting it anyway

I no longer pay for Claude — it’s too expensive. GLM from Z.ai is good enough for me and much cheaper than Claude/GPT/Gemini. To save even more money, I usually add “Don’t explain, just update the source and summarize” to the rules/system prompt. That way, I can use LLMs all day for only $10–20.

Seeing that you are working on a GUI framework, where the LLM has no closed (or at least tight enough) feedback loop, your stance is very understandable – and normal, I’ve heard it from multiple other people doing GUI work.

When you can give Claude a good test harness and a near-perfect requirements list / acceptance criteria, it does mostly well.

Sadly the more autonomous sessions leave Claude vulnerable to “this broke but it’s fine because…” or “this does not look good but it’s here before us so I am leaving it” or “I don’t like this but it’s out of scope” (for problems that almost human dev would immediately claim are in scope).

It’s not perfect. I am still hesitant to try GPT 5.5 but likely will; having two LLMs and one of them at least doing adversarial / critical reviews is by itself quite valuable.