If Codex feels noticeably worse today, it might be worth avoiding critical tasks for a few hours. Some users are reporting lower-quality responses and possible routing to smaller models, even when manually selecting a different model.

It may not be affecting everyone, but if you notice clear degradation, I’d avoid burning quota or trusting it with important changes until things stabilize.

They're all acting like this today. The connecting/compute issue errors aswell.

Maybe Astra this weekend or who knows tommorow release ?

I am getting ready with 2 accounts still at 50% weekly. I suggest you all get ready for another reset.

This is my experience today.. At the morning I found out codex again reseted quotas, so I told nice... but then, after few hours of work, I ran /status just to expect to see something like 97% left and BAM! only 48% LEFT OF WHOLE WHEEKLY ON 20x max plan!

What the ... is this?

You can even see on UI chart, that my todays usage is super low in comparison to previous days, so how that could be 50% of that???

What a scam is this?

I have been using Codex since late last year and right now it has become so slow that I'm thinking that either the increase in Codex users from 6 million less than 2 months ago to 25+ million now is causing this, or there is something really wrong with my installation.

I have 2 Codex plus-subscriptions, 2 Claude pro-subscriptions and a Supergrok heavy subscription + Cursor Ultra. Often I send the same prompt to Codex, Claude and Grok at the same time and right now Grok is about 3 times faster than Codex and Claude is about 2 times faster than codex. It's a really big difference. I also had the Codex 20x plan for the last few months and it was also slow with the 20x plan.

Do you guys notice the same? Or could there be something wrong with my Codex-files/installation? I'm using Codex in the ChatGPT-app and I've also tried it in VS Code and there it is just as slow.

Because the shit show has started.

Do yourself a favour and just take the next 2-3 days off, this happens every time before a new model release.

I signed up for a second Plus subscription ($20/mo) and the new account doesn't have a 5 hour usage limit. Is this a known bug? An A/B test by OAI? Something else?

Screenshots are of the usage page of both my paid accounts to show the difference.

Remember the old days when you could ask GPT for a change, and it would just search your files and do it? No overengineering, no overthinking.

Now it thinks for 30 seconds → runs 10 commands → thinks another 30 seconds → creates 1–3 QA files and a bunch of SHAs → changes 3–4 lines of code → double-checks everything → oops, compacting → starts reasoning again with the latest request just to double-check it all over again.

Last week 5.6 Sol Max was a champ - lower limits than one month ago, but still smart.

Last day or two, it feels like 5.6 Luna Max.

I fed it a prompt of half a dozen things I wanted it to do.

After a few compactions (due to its absurdly small context window) and chewing through 30% of my weekly quota, it claimed it was done.

But it was way off being done. Delivered less than half the features, and over-engineered to the point of taking me longer to fix what it had done than if I had coded it myself.

Claude's Opus 5 Max came to the rescue (with much less quota consumed).

OpenAI probably doing typical US AI lab BS by dumbing down their models before the release of their new oh-so-super smart model so the new one stands out as a crowning achievement.

.

Hey, I saw that X post, is it really true?

Sounds like OpenAI is turning the screws tighter and tighter.

I understand that there are a lot of professional users here but for the more casual folks especially on x5/Plus

Obligatory "is it me or" do you guys find Medium being better as a default

It seems it answers much faster, overthinks/hallucinates/overengineers/bloats much less and even if it does not do the job first time I like to believe 2 Medium goes beat 1 High

I understand it depends on complexity but talking about light-average difficulty projects

Currently I am trialing a system where it stays on Medium and if it fails for a bit then it suggests to spawn a High to analyze the issue

So like in the long term I get faster and possibly better or at least not worse result in less time

Have you tried using your OpenAI sub inside of Claude Code? I've been using Luna 5.6 (max) this morning in CC and it's more token-hungry but the resulting code is better.

Unfortunately, I don’t have $100 yet to invest in a Codex PRO plan, but I could get two PLUS accounts. Do you think it’s worth having two accounts in case one reaches its limit, either the five‑hour window or the weekly limit?

I've tried 5.6 Sol on only the $20 plan because I'm already paying for 3 Max x20 and afraid to drop $200 on Codex to properly try it out but cannot wait for Astra I've already cancelled 2 subscriptions that'll expire in a week. Really hope Astra comes out by then.

I know a lot of people say 5.6 Sol is better than Opus and others better than Fable but maybe its the $20 plan and not getting enough to test it but I still preferred Opus before their randomly inconsistent month. Really hope Astra is at least Fable level or better than Opus and wont even look back.

Just wanted to praise Tibo for their communication:

20x on the plan versus Claude faking it

No 5 hour limit on Max plans? I CANT wait for that.

Watch when I join they won't be doing any more resets lmao but that's fine, sorry in advance for making them stop with resets.

As a question, does Codex allow you to have multiple accounts? If so, have they spoken up to how many per person or just 1 only? Claude lets you do up to 3 so just need to know in advance.

After a 6-hour run and only $3 in credits, Luna MAX successfully reverse-engineered a game algorithm byte-for-byte and generated a working custom tool.

The results are genuinely amazing. It takes time, so you have to be willing to wait, but despite its slower speed, it handles complex logic with impressive precision. If you aren't in a rush, it is well worth the investment

Remember the old joke about the Interrupting Cow?

Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Interrupting cow.
Interrupting cow wh-
MOOOOOO!

Why is it that's what I feel like when I use voice chat in GPT and Codex? She is constantly interrupting and giving me answers before I have explained the problem...especially if I pause to think. In human terms, people can tell you are thinking (even on Team calls), but Codex voice takes that pause as a chance to answer your question.

Then, the exact opposite happens while she is thinking... complete silence and you don't know if she is thinking, done, or just stopped.

I like Voice overall, but this is frustrating while brainstorming.

Hi there, I used the default codex companion, it basically did nothing but show what it's thinking and pretty much nothing.

It was annoying for me as it took space and didn't actually contribute to anything.

Am I using them wrong? What's your take?

I got no real reason and as I understand it, that is the practice with all deactivated accounts?

I appealed and got rejected with some generic message. At that time, I had no idea what could be the reason.

Then I went in circles and the only thing that crossed my mind, as I am searching for a car, I automated "scraping" newly added car ads in order to find the best deal for my family.

Could this really be the reason? And if yes, is it really permanent?

Paid user here if it makes any difference

I only use social media when Ive used up all my GPT usage allowance.

What’s your codex confession?

I exhausted my Plus weekly Codex allowance while developing a real software project. Rather than immediately upgrading to Pro, I decided to run a small experiment.

I bought exactly $10 / 250 Codex credits with auto-reload OFF and continued developing normally.

This wasn't a synthetic benchmark or a collection of toy prompts. I'm building an actual software project, so my Codex workload includes repository analysis, implementation, tests, documentation, verification and commits.

I noticed that my displayed credit balance seemed to continue falling after Codex had finished working.

So I stopped sending it work and started recording the balance.

After previous activity stopped changing the displayed balance, it was stable at:

$3.48 / 87 credits

I then gave Codex one bounded, completely offline development phase.

To be precise, “one phase” does NOT mean one model call. The agent was free to perform the normal internal work necessary to complete the assignment.

During that phase it modified 8 files, added 43 tests, ran the complete 791-test suite plus verification/audits, updated documentation, committed the work, and then stopped.

Immediately after Codex finished:

$3.48 → $2.64

That made the phase appear to have consumed:

21 credits / $0.84

I then sent Codex nothing else.

Later:

$2.64 → $2.40

Still no Codex interaction.

Later again:

$2.40 → $2.08

Still no Codex interaction.

At that point, the same development phase that appeared to have consumed 21 credits when Codex stopped had posted at least:

35 credits / $1.40

That's 67% more posted usage than was visible when the agent finished.

I'm NOT claiming Codex charges for idle time.

I want to emphasize this because I don't want the observation confused with the conclusion.

The most reasonable explanation to me is delayed usage accounting/settlement for computation Codex had already performed.

If that's what's happening, I don't have a problem with the delayed accounting itself.

I have a problem with the UI not showing me that usage is still pending.

If the dashboard says:

Current balance: $2.64

while substantial already-incurred usage hasn't posted yet, how much do I actually have available?

$2.64?

$2.00?

$1.50?

I can't tell.

For a metered product, I'd really like the dashboard to expose something along the lines of:

Purchased credits: 250
Posted usage: X
Pending/committed usage: Y
Actually available: Z

Or, at minimum, clearly indicate:

“Usage reporting is delayed and additional consumption may still be pending.”

I don't object to expensive compute being expensive.

I just want the fuel gauge to tell me how much fuel I actually have left.

The other thing this $10 experiment taught me

Pay-as-you-go credits don't seem particularly economical for sustained agentic software development.

They're useful as emergency fuel after exhausting an included allowance. But for an intensive multi-day development project, watching a dollar-denominated balance drain task-by-task... without knowing how much consumption is still pending... makes it extremely difficult to judge the economics in real time.

Ironically, this experiment is making the larger 5x / 20x subscription allowances look substantially more attractive to me for concentrated development periods.

I'd also love to see some limited rollover of unused paid-plan usage. Development is bursty. Some weeks I may barely touch an agent; during a project I might use it intensively for several days. Even allowing 2-3 months of unused allowance to accumulate would be enormously useful.

But that's secondary to the reason I'm posting.

I'd like other credit users to try this.

If you've purchased Codex credits:

1. Stop using Codex.
2. Wait until your displayed balance appears stable.
3. Record it.
4. Run a normal, substantial Codex task.
5. Record the balance when Codex finishes.
6. Don't send Codex anything else.
7. Check the balance periodically for the next 30-60 minutes.

Does your balance continue declining after Codex has stopped?

I'd especially like measurements from Plus, Pro 5x and Pro 20x users.

If enough people reproduce this, we may be able to determine whether this is normal delayed accounting, approximately how long the settlement tail lasts, and how large it can be.

I'll update this post if my $2.08 balance changes again without another Codex interaction.

Ich habe meine lokalen Codex-Sessions ausgewertet und die Zeiträume vor und ab dem 23.08.2026 verglichen.

Kennzahl pro Tag       Vorher    Ab 23.08.    Veränderung
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━  ━━━━━━━━━━━  ━━━━━━━━━━━  ━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Requests                  153          595         +287 %
──────────────────  ───────────  ───────────  ─────────────
Tokens              14,7 Mio.    66,0 Mio.         +349 %
──────────────────  ───────────  ───────────  ─────────────
API-Kosten             6,98 $      13,95 $         +100 %

Damit liegen die geschätzten API-Kosten aktuell bei ungefähr 13,95 $ pro Tag, gegenüber 6,98 $ pro Tag im vorherigen Zeitraum.

Interessant ist, dass die Tokenmenge deutlich stärker gestiegen ist als die Kosten. Gründe dafür sind unter anderem:

- deutlich höherer Cache-Anteil

- häufigere Verwendung günstigerer Modelle

- veränderter Modellmix

Die Kosten pro Request sind dadurch sogar von ungefähr 0,0455 $ auf 0,0235 $ gesunken.

Woher stammen die Werte?

Die Werte stammen aus einer selbst betriebenen lokalen Telemetrie-Anwendung namens codex-telemetry.

Sie liest die lokalen Codex-Session-Dateien aus:

/root/.codex/sessions

Die Daten werden in einer lokalen SQLite-Datenbank gesammelt und nach Zeiträumen aggregiert.

Verglichen wurden:

- vorher: 10.01.–22.08.2026, 225 Tage

- danach: 23.08.–01.09.2026, 10 Tage

Die API-Kosten sind keine tatsächliche Rechnung, sondern eine Schätzung anhand der hinterlegten OpenAI-Referenzpreise vom 01.09.2026.

Berücksichtigt werden Input-, Cached-Input-, Cache-Write- und Output-Tokens.

Ich nutze ausschließlich das Plus Modell unter Debian als CLI und habe in der Phase ohne dem 5h Limit fast so gut wie das Limit ausgeschöpft und jetzt schaffe ich vielleicht immer mal nur 30% von 100%.

It is testing an end-to-end coding task, not raw model response speed.

Codex receives a small Python project containing a broken parse_duration function. The function initially understands only simple inputs such as 12s. Codex must fix it so it also handles compound durations such as:

• 2m15s
• 1h 30m 4ms
• 1h 2m 3s 4ms

It must also reject invalid inputs such as repeated units, units in the wrong order, decimals, negative values, unsupported units, and extra text.

For each run, Codex must:

1. Inspect the project and instructions.
2. Understand the parsing rules.
3. Edit only duration.py.
4. Run python -m unittest -q.
5. Finish with code that passes both the visible tests and additional hidden checks.

So the measured time includes the complete agent workflow: reading files, reasoning, using tools, editing code, running tests, interpreting the results, and producing the final response. The benchmark compares how quickly fast mode versus standard mode completes that exact workflow correctly.

This benchmark is designed to measure what the user actually feels during an autonomous coding task.

It captures:

• How long until Codex first responds
• The pauses while Codex reasons between tool calls
• Time spent inspecting and editing files
• Time spent running and interpreting tests
• Total time until Codex says it is finished

The most user-visible number is the total completion time. In this benchmark, fast mode averaged faster overall, but the experience was inconsistent: half the individual comparisons were slower. The first response was also virtually the same—5.16 seconds versus 5.22 seconds.

Remember, x1.5 the speed for "more usage"

I have no reason to make this up. I genuinely enjoy using codex.

I have been using Claude Code as my harness of choice for over a year now, but I want to give Codex a try. I started with the Claude CLI and have since moved to the desktop app. I'll be using the Codex desktop app too.

I'll be using the $100/month plan for both models, and running them side by side on the same tasks to compare the work of both systems. Trying to match the models/effort as closely as I can for a fair comparison.

My main question is around "customizing" Codex and aligning it with my Claude Code setup. I have a number of hooks, skills/commands, CLAUDE.md and other 'infrastructure' in my .claude directory. I've used the import feature on Codex to bring a lot of this stuff over, but I'm not sure if it's properly configuring things to maximize the effectiveness of Codex.

Any advice from others that have made this switch? Differences between the tools that I should consider in setting up my customizations and infra?

So far I think the Codex desktop app is slightly better to browse code diffs with. In a head-to-head comparison Sol 5.6 High didn't catch a pretty major gap in my code that Fable 5.1 did. I want to make sure it's not because my setup/harness needs optimizing.

I haven't been keeping up with Codex as much as I have with Claude so I'd appreciate any tips or tricks!