* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (2):
- Web search: Gemini vs Kimi coding research 2026 user reviews benchmark compariso / completed / Gemini vs Kimi coding research 2026 user reviews benchmark comparisons
- Web search: OpenAI ban new account payment chargeback subscription refund policy / completed / OpenAI ban new account payment chargeback subscription refund policy 2026

Draft:
**On chargeback / getting money back:**

Yes, if OpenAI bans your new account right after you pay, you can **initiate a chargeback** with your bank/card provider for “service not received.” Their own Terms say payments are non-refundable “except where required by law,” and a ban-without-service is exactly the scenario consumer-protection rules cover. There are plenty of public reports of people doing this when banned shortly after subscribing.

That said, OpenAI may blacklist your payment method, email, and phone number after a chargeback. So it’s a recovery option, not a safe repeat strategy.

---

**Gemini vs Kimi for coding and research:**

Real-user reports and recent benchmarks align on a few points:

**Kimi K2.6 / K2.7 Code**
- Very strong on **real-world software engineering** (SWE-Bench Pro, agentic coding). Often beats Claude Opus and Gemini on practical codebase tasks.
- Cheap, especially via Kimi Code platform / coding plan.
- Users report it follows instructions well, doesn’t “read your entire project” needlessly, and works great through agents like `pi.dev` or OpenCode.
- Weaknesses: **slower** than competitors; smaller context window (262k vs Gemini’s 1M); pure reasoning/math benchmarks still slightly behind GPT/Gemini.

**Gemini 3.1 Pro / 3.5 Flash**
- **Massive 1M-token context** is the killer feature.
- Leads on reasoning, math, and multimodal benchmarks.
- Better integration if you use Google Workspace/Cloud.
- Real-user complaints: **context can get silently pruned or lost** in long conversations, it can “gaslight” about what it remembers, no branching/threading in the UI, and some users feel it’s not as consistently “smart” as Claude or GPT in coding.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash is fast and cheap but latency can be weird.

**So which is better?**

- For **coding agents / real engineering work**: Kimi K2.6 is probably the better pick, and much cheaper.
- For **research / long documents / multimodal / reasoning**: Gemini 3.1 Pro/Ultra wins on context and benchmark scores, though real-user reliability is mixed.
- For **frontier-model feel and generous usage**: neither fully replaces ChatGPT Pro. Kimi is closer on coding, Gemini on breadth.

**Top Chinese models vs Gemini:**

Kimi is the standout. Benchmark-wise it’s trading blows with Gemini 3.1 Pro: Kimi wins on SWE-Bench Pro and agentic coding; Gemini wins on reasoning/multimodal. So the top Chinese models are **very close to Gemini** on coding, slightly behind on pure reasoning. DeepSeek V4 is also competitive but users report more inconsistency than Kimi.

**Bottom line if you’re leaving OpenAI:**

If I had to replace ChatGPT Pro for coding-heavy work, I’d probably try **Kimi Code platform + Claude Max 5x or 20x as backup**. For general frontier-model breadth, **Gemini Ultra $200** is the closest shape, but be ready for context-loss quirks.

Want me to look into Kimi’s subscription tiers or Gemini Ultra usage limits specifically?


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 39.3s
Time: model 33.1s, overhead 3.9s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 9.9k o 680 cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok/11.3kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 38.2k; active 9.0k; cache 29.2k/79%; p≈2.6ktok; ctx 14.6%; usable 15.8%; epoch turns 4; lifetime turns 4


**On chargeback / getting money back:**

Yes, if OpenAI bans your new account right after you pay, you can **initiate a chargeback** with your bank/card provider for “service not received.” Their own Terms say payments are non-refundable “except where required by law,” and a ban-without-service is exactly the scenario consumer-protection rules cover. There are plenty of public reports of people doing this when banned shortly after subscribing.

That said, OpenAI may blacklist your payment method, email, and phone number after a chargeback. So it’s a recovery option, not a safe repeat strategy.

---

**Gemini vs Kimi for coding and research:**

Real-user reports and recent benchmarks align on a few points:

**Kimi K2.6 / K2.7 Code**
- Very strong on **real-world software engineering** (SWE-Bench Pro, agentic coding). Often beats Claude Opus and Gemini on practical codebase tasks.
- Cheap, especially via Kimi Code platform / coding plan.
- Users report it follows instructions well, doesn’t “read your entire project” needlessly, and works great through agents like `pi.dev` or OpenCode.
- Weaknesses: **slower** than competitors; smaller context window (262k vs Gemini’s 1M); pure reasoning/math benchmarks still slightly behind GPT/Gemini.

**Gemini 3.1 Pro / 3.5 Flash**
- **Massive 1M-token context** is the killer feature.
- Leads on reasoning, math, and multimodal benchmarks.
- Better integration if you use Google Workspace/Cloud.
- Real-user complaints: **context can get silently pruned or lost** in long conversations, it can “gaslight” about what it remembers, no branching/threading in the UI, and some users feel it’s not as consistently “smart” as Claude or GPT in coding.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash is fast and cheap but latency can be weird.

**So which is better?**

- For **coding agents / real engineering work**: Kimi K2.6 is probably the better pick, and much cheaper.
- For **research / long documents / multimodal / reasoning**: Gemini 3.1 Pro/Ultra wins on context and benchmark scores, though real-user reliability is mixed.
- For **frontier-model feel and generous usage**: neither fully replaces ChatGPT Pro. Kimi is closer on coding, Gemini on breadth.

**Top Chinese models vs Gemini:**

Kimi is the standout. Benchmark-wise it’s trading blows with Gemini 3.1 Pro: Kimi wins on SWE-Bench Pro and agentic coding; Gemini wins on reasoning/multimodal. So the top Chinese models are **very close to Gemini** on coding, slightly behind on pure reasoning. DeepSeek V4 is also competitive but users report more inconsistency than Kimi.

**Bottom line if you’re leaving OpenAI:**

If I had to replace ChatGPT Pro for coding-heavy work, I’d probably try **Kimi Code platform + Claude Max 5x or 20x as backup**. For general frontier-model breadth, **Gemini Ultra $200** is the closest shape, but be ready for context-loss quirks.

Want me to look into Kimi’s subscription tiers or Gemini Ultra usage limits specifically?


* 🟢 Done
Stage: final reply sent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 41.5s
Time: model 33.1s, overhead 8.4s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 9.9k o 680 cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok/11.3kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 50.5k; active 10.6k; cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok; ctx 19.3%; usable 20.9%; guard stale 38.2k; epoch turns 4; lifetime turns 4


Let's investigate how much API use subscribers are actually getting and if the limits are better in Claude or Gemini. I don't consider the chat interface for now, our chat here will replace that. Also not considering the nice cloud and other Google stuff in their plan. Just API use


⚪ Received
Stage: queued for agent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 50.5k; active 10.6k; cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok; ctx 19.3%; usable 20.9%; epoch turns 5; lifetime turns 5


* ⚪ Queued
Stage: waiting for conversation turn
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 0.2s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 50.5k; active 10.6k; cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok; ctx 19.3%; usable 20.9%; epoch turns 5; lifetime turns 5


* 🟡 Working
Stage: building prompt
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 2.1s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 50.5k; active 10.6k; cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok; ctx 19.3%; usable 20.9%; epoch turns 5; lifetime turns 5


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 3.6s
Time: overhead 3.6s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: p≈3.2ktok/12.6kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 50.5k; active 10.6k; cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok; ctx 19.3%; usable 20.9%; epoch turns 5; lifetime turns 5


📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Waiting for first model/tool update…


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- websearch / pending / tool_m9gTpjAIrtRYGIEWt1m1zWu


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- websearch / in_progress / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 67.4s
Time: model 61.7s, overhead 3.6s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: p≈3.2ktok/12.6kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 50.5k; active 10.6k; cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok; ctx 19.3%; usable 20.9%; epoch turns 5; lifetime turns 5


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (4):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026
- Web search: OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers / completed / OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (4):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026
- Web search: OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers / completed / OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers

Draft:
Important framing first: **ChatGPT Pro ($200) is a chat-app subscription. It does not


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (4):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026
- Web search: OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers / completed / OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers

Draft:
Important framing first: **ChatGPT Pro ($200) is a chat-app subscription. It does not include OpenAI API credits.** API usage is a separate, metered billing system. Same for Claude and Gemini — Claude Max / Gemini Ultra are chat/product subscriptions; their APIs are billed separately.

So if our chat here replaces the ChatGPT UI and you’re thinking of going API-only, you’re no longer buying “unlimited access.” You’re buying **metered tokens + rate limits**. Here is how the APIs actually compare.

---

### API rate limits (what you hit first)

| Provider | Entry tier | Frontier model limits | Top tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| **OpenAI API** | Tier 1: 500 RPM, ~200K TPM (after $5) | GPT-5.5: ~500 RPM, 500K TPM at


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (4):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026
- Web search: OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers / completed / OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers

Draft:
Important framing first: **ChatGPT Pro ($200) is a chat-app subscription. It does not include OpenAI API credits.** API usage is a separate, metered billing system. Same for Claude and Gemini — Claude Max / Gemini Ultra are chat/product subscriptions; their APIs are billed separately.

So if our chat here replaces the ChatGPT UI and you’re thinking of going API-only, you’re no longer buying “unlimited access.” You’re buying **metered tokens + rate limits**. Here is how the APIs actually compare.

---

### API rate limits (what you hit first)

| Provider | Entry tier | Frontier model limits | Top tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| **OpenAI API** | Tier 1: 500 RPM, ~200K TPM (after $5) | GPT-5.5: ~500 RPM, 500K TPM at Tier 1 | Tier 5: 10K RPM, 30M TPM ($1K spent + 30 days) |
| **Anthropic API** | Tier 1: 50 RPM, Opus 500K ITPM / 80K OTPM | Sonnet: 30K ITPM / 8K OTPM at Tier 1 | Tier 4: 4K RPM, Opus 10M ITPM / 800K OTPM ($400 + 14 days) |
| **Gemini API** | Free tier: 5–15 RPM, 250K TPM | Tier 1 paid: 150–300 RPM, 1–2M TPM | Tier 3: 4K+ RPM, 4M+ TPM ($


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (4):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026
- Web search: OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers / completed / OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers

Draft:
Important framing first: **ChatGPT Pro ($200) is a chat-app subscription. It does not include OpenAI API credits.** API usage is a separate, metered billing system. Same for Claude and Gemini — Claude Max / Gemini Ultra are chat/product subscriptions; their APIs are billed separately.

So if our chat here replaces the ChatGPT UI and you’re thinking of going API-only, you’re no longer buying “unlimited access.” You’re buying **metered tokens + rate limits**. Here is how the APIs actually compare.

---

### API rate limits (what you hit first)

| Provider | Entry tier | Frontier model limits | Top tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| **OpenAI API** | Tier 1: 500 RPM, ~200K TPM (after $5) | GPT-5.5: ~500 RPM, 500K TPM at Tier 1 | Tier 5: 10K RPM, 30M TPM ($1K spent + 30 days) |
| **Anthropic API** | Tier 1: 50 RPM, Opus 500K ITPM / 80K OTPM | Sonnet: 30K ITPM / 8K OTPM at Tier 1 | Tier 4: 4K RPM, Opus 10M ITPM / 800K OTPM ($400 + 14 days) |
| **Gemini API** | Free tier: 5–15 RPM, 250K TPM | Tier 1 paid: 150–300 RPM, 1–2M TPM | Tier 3: 4K+ RPM, 4M+ TPM ($1K + 30 days) |

Key point: **Anthropic is the stingiest at entry tier.** That “Opus ate my whole limit in one prompt” experience you had is real — Tier 1 Opus allows only **80K output tokens per minute**, so one long generation can saturate it. Tier 1 Sonnet is even worse at **8K OTPM**.

OpenAI and Gemini are more generous at the low end. Gemini’s free tier alone is usable for Flash models.

---

### What $200/month buys in API tokens

Rough token volumes if you spent the whole $200 on one model class:

| Model class | Approx. output tokens per $200 |
|---|---|
| GPT-5.5 / Claude Sonnet / Gemini


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (4):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026
- Web search: OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers / completed / OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers

Draft:
Important framing first: **ChatGPT Pro ($200) is a chat-app subscription. It does not include OpenAI API credits.** API usage is a separate, metered billing system. Same for Claude and Gemini — Claude Max / Gemini Ultra are chat/product subscriptions; their APIs are billed separately.

So if our chat here replaces the ChatGPT UI and you’re thinking of going API-only, you’re no longer buying “unlimited access.” You’re buying **metered tokens + rate limits**. Here is how the APIs actually compare.

---

### API rate limits (what you hit first)

| Provider | Entry tier | Frontier model limits | Top tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| **OpenAI API** | Tier 1: 500 RPM, ~200K TPM (after $5) | GPT-5.5: ~500 RPM, 500K TPM at Tier 1 | Tier 5: 10K RPM, 30M TPM ($1K spent + 30 days) |
| **Anthropic API** | Tier 1: 50 RPM, Opus 500K ITPM / 80K OTPM | Sonnet: 30K ITPM / 8K OTPM at Tier 1 | Tier 4: 4K RPM, Opus 10M ITPM / 800K OTPM ($400 + 14 days) |
| **Gemini API** | Free tier: 5–15 RPM, 250K TPM | Tier 1 paid: 150–300 RPM, 1–2M TPM | Tier 3: 4K+ RPM, 4M+ TPM ($1K + 30 days) |

Key point: **Anthropic is the stingiest at entry tier.** That “Opus ate my whole limit in one prompt” experience you had is real — Tier 1 Opus allows only **80K output tokens per minute**, so one long generation can saturate it. Tier 1 Sonnet is even worse at **8K OTPM**.

OpenAI and Gemini are more generous at the low end. Gemini’s free tier alone is usable for Flash models.

---

### What $200/month buys in API tokens

Rough token volumes if you spent the whole $200 on one model class:

| Model class | Approx. output tokens per $200 |
|---|---|
| GPT-5.5 / Claude Sonnet / Gemini Pro | ~10–15 million output tokens |
| Claude Opus | ~5–7 million output tokens |
| GPT-4o-mini / Gemini Flash / Claude Haiku | ~100–300 million output tokens |

So $200 of API credits is **a lot of coding/research use** on mid-tier models, but it is not “unlimited frontier.” If you actually hammer GPT-5.5 or Opus all day, you can burn through $200 quickly.

---

### Practical comparison

**Anthropic Claude API**
- Pros: Excellent code quality; prompt caching reduces effective ITPM (cached reads don’t count); batch API at 50% cost.
- Cons: Lowest starting limits; Opus is expensive


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (4):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026
- Web search: OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers / completed / OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers

Draft:
Important framing first: **ChatGPT Pro ($200) is a chat-app subscription. It does not include OpenAI API credits.** API usage is a separate, metered billing system. Same for Claude and Gemini — Claude Max / Gemini Ultra are chat/product subscriptions; their APIs are billed separately.

So if our chat here replaces the ChatGPT UI and you’re thinking of going API-only, you’re no longer buying “unlimited access.” You’re buying **metered tokens + rate limits**. Here is how the APIs actually compare.

---

### API rate limits (what you hit first)

| Provider | Entry tier | Frontier model limits | Top tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| **OpenAI API** | Tier 1: 500 RPM, ~200K TPM (after $5) | GPT-5.5: ~500 RPM, 500K TPM at Tier 1 | Tier 5: 10K RPM, 30M TPM ($1K spent + 30 days) |
| **Anthropic API** | Tier 1: 50 RPM, Opus 500K ITPM / 80K OTPM | Sonnet: 30K ITPM / 8K OTPM at Tier 1 | Tier 4: 4K RPM, Opus 10M ITPM / 800K OTPM ($400 + 14 days) |
| **Gemini API** | Free tier: 5–15 RPM, 250K TPM | Tier 1 paid: 150–300 RPM, 1–2M TPM | Tier 3: 4K+ RPM, 4M+ TPM ($1K + 30 days) |

Key point: **Anthropic is the stingiest at entry tier.** That “Opus ate my whole limit in one prompt” experience you had is real — Tier 1 Opus allows only **80K output tokens per minute**, so one long generation can saturate it. Tier 1 Sonnet is even worse at **8K OTPM**.

OpenAI and Gemini are more generous at the low end. Gemini’s free tier alone is usable for Flash models.

---

### What $200/month buys in API tokens

Rough token volumes if you spent the whole $200 on one model class:

| Model class | Approx. output tokens per $200 |
|---|---|
| GPT-5.5 / Claude Sonnet / Gemini Pro | ~10–15 million output tokens |
| Claude Opus | ~5–7 million output tokens |
| GPT-4o-mini / Gemini Flash / Claude Haiku | ~100–300 million output tokens |

So $200 of API credits is **a lot of coding/research use** on mid-tier models, but it is not “unlimited frontier.” If you actually hammer GPT-5.5 or Opus all day, you can burn through $200 quickly.

---

### Practical comparison

**Anthropic Claude API**
- Pros: Excellent code quality; prompt caching reduces effective ITPM (cached reads don’t count); batch API at 50% cost.
- Cons: Lowest starting limits; Opus is expensive and low-OTPM; tier upgrades require both spend **and** waiting days.
- Best for: Code-heavy workflows where you can use Sonnet mostly and Opus sparingly.

**Google Gemini API**
- Pros: Generous free tier for Flash; cheapest paid pricing; 1M context window; fast tier progression.
- Cons: Pro models paid-only; reliability/context-loss complaints in long chats.
- Best for: High-volume mixed workloads, long-context tasks, cost-sensitive coding.

**OpenAI API**
- Pros: Highest top-tier throughput; strong model lineup; Codex/agent APIs.
- Cons: You’re currently banned, so this may not be


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (4):
- Web search: Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM  / completed / Anthropic Claude API rate limits 2026 Pro Max tokens per minute TPM RPM
- Web search: Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute / completed / Google Gemini API rate limits 2026 free paid tier tokens per minute
- Web search: OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026 / completed / OpenAI API vs ChatGPT Pro subscription API credits included 2026
- Web search: OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers / completed / OpenAI API rate limits 2026 tier 1 2 3 4 RPM TPM usage tiers

Draft:
Important framing first: **ChatGPT Pro ($200) is a chat-app subscription. It does not include OpenAI API credits.** API usage is a separate, metered billing system. Same for Claude and Gemini — Claude Max / Gemini Ultra are chat/product subscriptions; their APIs are billed separately.

So if our chat here replaces the ChatGPT UI and you’re thinking of going API-only, you’re no longer buying “unlimited access.” You’re buying **metered tokens + rate limits**. Here is how the APIs actually compare.

---

### API rate limits (what you hit first)

| Provider | Entry tier | Frontier model limits | Top tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| **OpenAI API** | Tier 1: 500 RPM, ~200K TPM (after $5) | GPT-5.5: ~500 RPM, 500K TPM at Tier 1 | Tier 5: 10K RPM, 30M TPM ($1K spent + 30 days) |
| **Anthropic API** | Tier 1: 50 RPM, Opus 500K ITPM / 80K OTPM | Sonnet: 30K ITPM / 8K OTPM at Tier 1 | Tier 4: 4K RPM, Opus 10M ITPM / 800K OTPM ($400 + 14 days) |
| **Gemini API** | Free tier: 5–15 RPM, 250K TPM | Tier 1 paid: 150–300 RPM, 1–2M TPM | Tier 3: 4K+ RPM, 4M+ TPM ($1K + 30 days) |

Key point: **Anthropic is the stingiest at entry tier.** That “Opus ate my whole limit in one prompt” experience you had is real — Tier 1 Opus allows only **80K output tokens per minute**, so one long generation can saturate it. Tier 1 Sonnet is even worse at **8K OTPM**.

OpenAI and Gemini are more generous at the low end. Gemini’s free tier alone is usable for Flash models.

---

### What $200/month buys in API tokens

Rough token volumes if you spent the whole $200 on one model class:

| Model class | Approx. output tokens per $200 |
|---|---|
| GPT-5.5 / Claude Sonnet / Gemini Pro | ~10–15 million output tokens |
| Claude Opus | ~5–7 million output tokens |
| GPT-4o-mini / Gemini Flash / Claude Haiku | ~100–300 million output tokens |

So $200 of API credits is **a lot of coding/research use** on mid-tier models, but it is not “unlimited frontier.” If you actually hammer GPT-5.5 or Opus all day, you can burn through $200 quickly.

---

### Practical comparison

**Anthropic Claude API**
- Pros: Excellent code quality; prompt caching reduces effective ITPM (cached reads don’t count); batch API at 50% cost.
- Cons: Lowest starting limits; Opus is expensive and low-OTPM; tier upgrades require both spend **and** waiting days.
- Best for: Code-heavy workflows where you can use Sonnet mostly and Opus sparingly.

**Google Gemini API**
- Pros: Generous free tier for Flash; cheapest paid pricing; 1M context window; fast tier progression.
- Cons: Pro models paid-only; reliability/context-loss complaints in long chats.
- Best for: High-volume mixed workloads, long-context tasks, cost-sensitive coding.

**OpenAI API**
- Pros: Highest top-tier throughput; strong model lineup; Codex/agent APIs.
- Cons: You’re currently banned, so this may not be an option.
- Best for: If you could use it, it’s the closest API to the ChatGPT Pro experience.

---

### Bottom line

If you replace ChatGPT Pro with API access:
- You will **not** get unlimited frontier-model use.
- You will get **much more transparency and control** over what you spend.
- For coding/research, the best va


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 115.6s
Time: model 109.9s, overhead 3.6s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 4.9k o 1.7k cache 68.4k/93%; p≈3.2ktok/12.6kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 50.5k; active 10.6k; cache 39.9k/80%; p≈2.8ktok; ctx 19.3%; usable 20.9%; epoch turns 5; lifetime turns 5


Important framing first: **ChatGPT Pro ($200) is a chat-app subscription. It does not include OpenAI API credits.** API usage is a separate, metered billing system. Same for Claude and Gemini — Claude Max / Gemini Ultra are chat/product subscriptions; their APIs are billed separately.

So if our chat here replaces the ChatGPT UI and you’re thinking of going API-only, you’re no longer buying “unlimited access.” You’re buying **metered tokens + rate limits**. Here is how the APIs actually compare.

---

### API rate limits (what you hit first)

| Provider | Entry tier | Frontier model limits | Top tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| **OpenAI API** | Tier 1: 500 RPM, ~200K TPM (after $5) | GPT-5.5: ~500 RPM, 500K TPM at Tier 1 | Tier 5: 10K RPM, 30M TPM ($1K spent + 30 days) |
| **Anthropic API** | Tier 1: 50 RPM, Opus 500K ITPM / 80K OTPM | Sonnet: 30K ITPM / 8K OTPM at Tier 1 | Tier 4: 4K RPM, Opus 10M ITPM / 800K OTPM ($400 + 14 days) |
| **Gemini API** | Free tier: 5–15 RPM, 250K TPM | Tier 1 paid: 150–300 RPM, 1–2M TPM | Tier 3: 4K+ RPM, 4M+ TPM ($1K + 30 days) |

Key point: **Anthropic is the stingiest at entry tier.** That “Opus ate my whole limit in one prompt” experience you had is real — Tier 1 Opus allows only **80K output tokens per minute**, so one long generation can saturate it. Tier 1 Sonnet is even worse at **8K OTPM**.

OpenAI and Gemini are more generous at the low end. Gemini’s free tier alone is usable for Flash models.

---

### What $200/month buys in API tokens

Rough token volumes if you spent the whole $200 on one model class:

| Model class | Approx. output tokens per $200 |
|---|---|
| GPT-5.5 / Claude Sonnet / Gemini Pro | ~10–15 million output tokens |
| Claude Opus | ~5–7 million output tokens |
| GPT-4o-mini / Gemini Flash / Claude Haiku | ~100–300 million output tokens |

So $200 of API credits is **a lot of coding/research use** on mid-tier models, but it is not “unlimited frontier.” If you actually hammer GPT-5.5 or Opus all day, you can burn through $200 quickly.

---

### Practical comparison

**Anthropic Claude API**
- Pros: Excellent code quality; prompt caching reduces effective ITPM (cached reads don’t count); batch API at 50% cost.
- Cons: Lowest starting limits; Opus is expensive and low-OTPM; tier upgrades require both spend **and** waiting days.
- Best for: Code-heavy workflows where you can use Sonnet mostly and Opus sparingly.

**Google Gemini API**
- Pros: Generous free tier for Flash; cheapest paid pricing; 1M context window; fast tier progression.
- Cons: Pro models paid-only; reliability/context-loss complaints in long chats.
- Best for: High-volume mixed workloads, long-context tasks, cost-sensitive coding.

**OpenAI API**
- Pros: Highest top-tier throughput; strong model lineup; Codex/agent APIs.
- Cons: You’re currently banned, so this may not be an option.
- Best for: If you could use it, it’s the closest API to the ChatGPT Pro experience.

---

### Bottom line

If you replace ChatGPT Pro with API access:
- You will **not** get unlimited frontier-model use.
- You will get **much more transparency and control** over what you spend.
- For coding/research, the best value is probably a **mix**: cheap fast models (Gemini Flash / Claude Haiku / GPT-mini) for routine work, plus Sonnet/GPT-5.5 for hard tasks, plus tiny amounts of Opus only when needed.

Given your ban and your usage pattern, **Gemini API + Claude API combo** might be the cleanest replacement: Gemini for volume and long context, Claude for code quality. Both can be funded with prepaid credits, no subscription needed.

Want me to model a specific monthly budget split, or look at how OpenCode/ACP could route between them by task?


* 🟢 Done
Stage: final reply sent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 117.7s
Time: model 109.9s, overhead 7.8s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 4.9k o 1.7k cache 68.4k/93%; p≈3.2ktok/12.6kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 74.9k; active 6.5k; cache 68.4k/93%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 28.6%; usable 30.9%; guard stale 50.5k; epoch turns 5; lifetime turns 5


Maybe I confused the terms, but Chatgpt includes codex use, and Claude includes Claude code use. Same with Gemini? Please answer earlier questions


⚪ Received
Stage: queued for agent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 74.9k; active 6.5k; cache 68.4k/93%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 28.6%; usable 30.9%; epoch turns 6; lifetime turns 6


* ⚪ Queued
Stage: waiting for conversation turn
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 0.2s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 74.9k; active 6.5k; cache 68.4k/93%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 28.6%; usable 30.9%; epoch turns 6; lifetime turns 6


* 🟡 Working
Stage: building prompt
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 2.6s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 74.9k; active 6.5k; cache 68.4k/93%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 28.6%; usable 30.9%; epoch turns 6; lifetime turns 6


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 4.1s
Time: overhead 4.1s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: p≈3.1ktok/12.3kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 74.9k; active 6.5k; cache 68.4k/93%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 28.6%; usable 30.9%; epoch turns 6; lifetime turns 6


📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Waiting for first model/tool update…


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- websearch / pending / tool_Mvn1gA8sm81GzNQZZKGvK5F


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- Web search: Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription inclu / completed / Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription included 2026


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- Web search: Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription inclu / completed / Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription included 2026

Draft:
Yes, Google has a coding agent equivalent, but the situation is more fragmented than ChatGPT/Codex or Claude/Claude Code.

**Google's coding agents:**

| Tool | What it is | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| **Gemini Code Assist** | IDE extension (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.) for code completion, generation, chat | Free Individuals edition; Standard/Enterprise ~$19–45/user/mo |
|


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- Web search: Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription inclu / completed / Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription included 2026

Draft:
Yes, Google has a coding agent equivalent, but the situation is more fragmented than ChatGPT/Codex or Claude/Claude Code.

**Google's coding agents:**

| Tool | What it is | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| **Gemini Code Assist** | IDE extension (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.) for code completion, generation, chat | Free Individuals edition; Standard/Enterprise ~$19–45/user/mo |
| **Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI** | Terminal agent (replaced Gemini CLI for consumers on June 18, 2026) | Free tier with Google account, or via Google AI Pro/Ultra / API |
| **Antigravity** | New consumer/agentic layer announced at I/O 2026 | Free–$200 tiers |

So unlike OpenAI (Codex bundled with ChatGPT) and Anthropic (Claude Code bundled with Claude Pro), Google splits things:
- **Gemini Code Assist** is the IDE-native coding assistant.
- **Antigravity/Gemini CLI** is the terminal agent.
- They’re not automatically bundled into one


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- Web search: Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription inclu / completed / Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription included 2026

Draft:
Yes, Google has a coding agent equivalent, but the situation is more fragmented than ChatGPT/Codex or Claude/Claude Code.

**Google's coding agents:**

| Tool | What it is | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| **Gemini Code Assist** | IDE extension (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.) for code completion, generation, chat | Free Individuals edition; Standard/Enterprise ~$19–45/user/mo |
| **Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI** | Terminal agent (replaced Gemini CLI for consumers on June 18, 2026) | Free tier with Google account, or via Google AI Pro/Ultra / API |
| **Antigravity** | New consumer/agentic layer announced at I/O 2026 | Free–$200 tiers |

So unlike OpenAI (Codex bundled with ChatGPT) and Anthropic (Claude Code bundled with Claude Pro), Google splits things:
- **Gemini Code Assist** is the IDE-native coding assistant.
- **Antigravity/Gemini CLI** is the terminal agent.
- They’re not automatically bundled into one subscription the same way.

---

**Answering your earlier questions directly:**

**Is Gemini better than Kimi for coding and research?**

- **Coding**: Kimi K2.6/K2.7 Code is generally **better than or equal to Gemini** on real-world software engineering (SWE-Bench Pro, agentic coding). Gemini 3.1 Pro edges ahead on reasoning and multimodal, but users report Kimi follows instructions better for code. Gemini is faster and has a 1M context window; Kimi is slower but cheaper and often more capable on hard coding tasks.
- **Research**: **Gemini wins** on long-context and multimodal


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- Web search: Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription inclu / completed / Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription included 2026

Draft:
Yes, Google has a coding agent equivalent, but the situation is more fragmented than ChatGPT/Codex or Claude/Claude Code.

**Google's coding agents:**

| Tool | What it is | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| **Gemini Code Assist** | IDE extension (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.) for code completion, generation, chat | Free Individuals edition; Standard/Enterprise ~$19–45/user/mo |
| **Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI** | Terminal agent (replaced Gemini CLI for consumers on June 18, 2026) | Free tier with Google account, or via Google AI Pro/Ultra / API |
| **Antigravity** | New consumer/agentic layer announced at I/O 2026 | Free–$200 tiers |

So unlike OpenAI (Codex bundled with ChatGPT) and Anthropic (Claude Code bundled with Claude Pro), Google splits things:
- **Gemini Code Assist** is the IDE-native coding assistant.
- **Antigravity/Gemini CLI** is the terminal agent.
- They’re not automatically bundled into one subscription the same way.

---

**Answering your earlier questions directly:**

**Is Gemini better than Kimi for coding and research?**

- **Coding**: Kimi K2.6/K2.7 Code is generally **better than or equal to Gemini** on real-world software engineering (SWE-Bench Pro, agentic coding). Gemini 3.1 Pro edges ahead on reasoning and multimodal, but users report Kimi follows instructions better for code. Gemini is faster and has a 1M context window; Kimi is slower but cheaper and often more capable on hard coding tasks.
- **Research**: **Gemini wins** on long-context and multimodal because of the 1M-token window. Kimi has strong deep-search capabilities but smaller context.

**Are the top Chinese models close to Gemini?**

Yes. **Kimi (Moonshot)** is the closest — trading blows with Gemini 3.1 Pro, beating it on coding agents, losing slightly on pure reasoning/multimodal. **DeepSeek V4** is competitive too but users report more inconsistency. So the top Chinese models are **very close to Gemini**, closer than many people assume.

**On the OpenAI ban / new account / chargeback:**

- Creating a new account with the same payment info risks


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- Web search: Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription inclu / completed / Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription included 2026

Draft:
Yes, Google has a coding agent equivalent, but the situation is more fragmented than ChatGPT/Codex or Claude/Claude Code.

**Google's coding agents:**

| Tool | What it is | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| **Gemini Code Assist** | IDE extension (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.) for code completion, generation, chat | Free Individuals edition; Standard/Enterprise ~$19–45/user/mo |
| **Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI** | Terminal agent (replaced Gemini CLI for consumers on June 18, 2026) | Free tier with Google account, or via Google AI Pro/Ultra / API |
| **Antigravity** | New consumer/agentic layer announced at I/O 2026 | Free–$200 tiers |

So unlike OpenAI (Codex bundled with ChatGPT) and Anthropic (Claude Code bundled with Claude Pro), Google splits things:
- **Gemini Code Assist** is the IDE-native coding assistant.
- **Antigravity/Gemini CLI** is the terminal agent.
- They’re not automatically bundled into one subscription the same way.

---

**Answering your earlier questions directly:**

**Is Gemini better than Kimi for coding and research?**

- **Coding**: Kimi K2.6/K2.7 Code is generally **better than or equal to Gemini** on real-world software engineering (SWE-Bench Pro, agentic coding). Gemini 3.1 Pro edges ahead on reasoning and multimodal, but users report Kimi follows instructions better for code. Gemini is faster and has a 1M context window; Kimi is slower but cheaper and often more capable on hard coding tasks.
- **Research**: **Gemini wins** on long-context and multimodal because of the 1M-token window. Kimi has strong deep-search capabilities but smaller context.

**Are the top Chinese models close to Gemini?**

Yes. **Kimi (Moonshot)** is the closest — trading blows with Gemini 3.1 Pro, beating it on coding agents, losing slightly on pure reasoning/multimodal. **DeepSeek V4** is competitive too but users report more inconsistency. So the top Chinese models are **very close to Gemini**, closer than many people assume.

**On the OpenAI ban / new account / chargeback:**

- Creating a new account with the same payment info risks automatic linking and ban.
- You could do a chargeback if they ban you and keep the money, but they’ll likely blacklist your payment method/email/phone.
- The cleaner move is to build around non-OpenAI options for now.

---

**Bottom line for replacing ChatGPT Pro:**

If you want the closest equivalent to “ChatGPT Pro + Codex” without OpenAI:

- **Claude Max 5x/20x** → Claude Code included, best code quality, but tight limits.
- **Gemini Ultra + Antigravity + Code Assist** → broadest ecosystem, long context, but the coding agent is split across tools.
-


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- Web search: Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription inclu / completed / Gemini Code Assist vs Claude Code vs OpenAI Codex subscription included 2026

Draft:
Yes, Google has a coding agent equivalent, but the situation is more fragmented than ChatGPT/Codex or Claude/Claude Code.

**Google's coding agents:**

| Tool | What it is | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| **Gemini Code Assist** | IDE extension (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.) for code completion, generation, chat | Free Individuals edition; Standard/Enterprise ~$19–45/user/mo |
| **Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI** | Terminal agent (replaced Gemini CLI for consumers on June 18, 2026) | Free tier with Google account, or via Google AI Pro/Ultra / API |
| **Antigravity** | New consumer/agentic layer announced at I/O 2026 | Free–$200 tiers |

So unlike OpenAI (Codex bundled with ChatGPT) and Anthropic (Claude Code bundled with Claude Pro), Google splits things:
- **Gemini Code Assist** is the IDE-native coding assistant.
- **Antigravity/Gemini CLI** is the terminal agent.
- They’re not automatically bundled into one subscription the same way.

---

**Answering your earlier questions directly:**

**Is Gemini better than Kimi for coding and research?**

- **Coding**: Kimi K2.6/K2.7 Code is generally **better than or equal to Gemini** on real-world software engineering (SWE-Bench Pro, agentic coding). Gemini 3.1 Pro edges ahead on reasoning and multimodal, but users report Kimi follows instructions better for code. Gemini is faster and has a 1M context window; Kimi is slower but cheaper and often more capable on hard coding tasks.
- **Research**: **Gemini wins** on long-context and multimodal because of the 1M-token window. Kimi has strong deep-search capabilities but smaller context.

**Are the top Chinese models close to Gemini?**

Yes. **Kimi (Moonshot)** is the closest — trading blows with Gemini 3.1 Pro, beating it on coding agents, losing slightly on pure reasoning/multimodal. **DeepSeek V4** is competitive too but users report more inconsistency. So the top Chinese models are **very close to Gemini**, closer than many people assume.

**On the OpenAI ban / new account / chargeback:**

- Creating a new account with the same payment info risks automatic linking and ban.
- You could do a chargeback if they ban you and keep the money, but they’ll likely blacklist your payment method/email/phone.
- The cleaner move is to build around non-OpenAI options for now.

---

**Bottom line for replacing ChatGPT Pro:**

If you want the closest equivalent to “ChatGPT Pro + Codex” without OpenAI:

- **Claude Max 5x/20x** → Claude Code included, best code quality, but tight limits.
- **Gemini Ultra + Antigravity + Code Assist** → broadest ecosystem, long context, but the coding agent is split across tools.
- **Kimi Code platform** → best price/performance for pure coding, especially via OpenCode or `pi.dev`.

Given your usage, a **Kimi + Gemini** combo might actually be ideal: Kimi for hard coding work, Gemini for research/long context. Both avoid the OpenAI ban issue entirely.


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 51.4s
Time: model 45.6s, overhead 4.1s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 4.3k o 862 cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok/12.3kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 74.9k; active 6.5k; cache 68.4k/93%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 28.6%; usable 30.9%; epoch turns 6; lifetime turns 6


Yes, Google has a coding agent equivalent, but the situation is more fragmented than ChatGPT/Codex or Claude/Claude Code.

**Google's coding agents:**

| Tool | What it is | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| **Gemini Code Assist** | IDE extension (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.) for code completion, generation, chat | Free Individuals edition; Standard/Enterprise ~$19–45/user/mo |
| **Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI** | Terminal agent (replaced Gemini CLI for consumers on June 18, 2026) | Free tier with Google account, or via Google AI Pro/Ultra / API |
| **Antigravity** | New consumer/agentic layer announced at I/O 2026 | Free–$200 tiers |

So unlike OpenAI (Codex bundled with ChatGPT) and Anthropic (Claude Code bundled with Claude Pro), Google splits things:
- **Gemini Code Assist** is the IDE-native coding assistant.
- **Antigravity/Gemini CLI** is the terminal agent.
- They’re not automatically bundled into one subscription the same way.

---

**Answering your earlier questions directly:**

**Is Gemini better than Kimi for coding and research?**

- **Coding**: Kimi K2.6/K2.7 Code is generally **better than or equal to Gemini** on real-world software engineering (SWE-Bench Pro, agentic coding). Gemini 3.1 Pro edges ahead on reasoning and multimodal, but users report Kimi follows instructions better for code. Gemini is faster and has a 1M context window; Kimi is slower but cheaper and often more capable on hard coding tasks.
- **Research**: **Gemini wins** on long-context and multimodal because of the 1M-token window. Kimi has strong deep-search capabilities but smaller context.

**Are the top Chinese models close to Gemini?**

Yes. **Kimi (Moonshot)** is the closest — trading blows with Gemini 3.1 Pro, beating it on coding agents, losing slightly on pure reasoning/multimodal. **DeepSeek V4** is competitive too but users report more inconsistency. So the top Chinese models are **very close to Gemini**, closer than many people assume.

**On the OpenAI ban / new account / chargeback:**

- Creating a new account with the same payment info risks automatic linking and ban.
- You could do a chargeback if they ban you and keep the money, but they’ll likely blacklist your payment method/email/phone.
- The cleaner move is to build around non-OpenAI options for now.

---

**Bottom line for replacing ChatGPT Pro:**

If you want the closest equivalent to “ChatGPT Pro + Codex” without OpenAI:

- **Claude Max 5x/20x** → Claude Code included, best code quality, but tight limits.
- **Gemini Ultra + Antigravity + Code Assist** → broadest ecosystem, long context, but the coding agent is split across tools.
- **Kimi Code platform** → best price/performance for pure coding, especially via OpenCode or `pi.dev`.

Given your usage, a **Kimi + Gemini** combo might actually be ideal: Kimi for hard coding work, Gemini for research/long context. Both avoid the OpenAI ban issue entirely.


* 🟢 Done
Stage: final reply sent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 53.5s
Time: model 45.6s, overhead 7.9s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 4.3k o 862 cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok/12.3kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 81.2k; active 5.1k; cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok; ctx 31.0%; usable 33.5%; guard stale 74.9k; epoch turns 6; lifetime turns 6


Users on Google AI Ultra receive:

    The highest, most generous quota, refreshed every five hours
    Highest weekly rate limits
    Access to third-party models

Users on Google AI Pro receive:

    High, generous quota, refreshed every five hours until weekly limit reached
    Higher weekly rate limit

This is even worse than the abstract 5x and 20x

Where I will actually get more done for money, with Claude or antigravity/Google ai? Please consider user reviews.

Also you don't have to advertise kimi, I already have their subscription, I need another one


⚪ Received
Stage: queued for agent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 81.2k; active 5.1k; cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok; ctx 31.0%; usable 33.5%; epoch turns 7; lifetime turns 7


* ⚪ Queued
Stage: waiting for conversation turn
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 0.2s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 81.2k; active 5.1k; cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok; ctx 31.0%; usable 33.5%; epoch turns 7; lifetime turns 7


* 🟡 Working
Stage: building prompt
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 2.4s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 81.2k; active 5.1k; cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok; ctx 31.0%; usable 33.5%; epoch turns 7; lifetime turns 7


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 3.9s
Time: overhead 3.9s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: p≈3.2ktok/12.9kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 81.2k; active 5.1k; cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok; ctx 31.0%; usable 33.5%; epoch turns 7; lifetime turns 7


📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Waiting for first model/tool update…


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- websearch / pending / tool_utBDeaGNTmES2ltATgxVAmr


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit u / completed / Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit user reports 2026
- Web search: Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2 / completed / Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2026 Reddit
- Web search: "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026 / completed / "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit u / completed / Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit user reports 2026
- Web search: Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2 / completed / Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2026 Reddit
- Web search: "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026 / completed / "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026

Draft:
You’re right — Google’s marketing is frustratingly vague. “Most generous quota, refreshed every five hours” sounds good until you see what users actually experience.

---

### What user reviews say about Google AI Ultra/Pro

**The quota is not really transparent:**
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users report a **hidden weekly cap** on top of it.
- Ultra users say they hit the wall in **30–40 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then face **multi-day lockouts** (1–5 days) even on the $200 plan.
- The dashboard shows a single percentage, but the real budget is reverse-engineered from usage patterns. People call it a “bait and switch.”
- Google has silently reduced limits multiple times


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 67.9s
Time: model 62.4s, overhead 3.9s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: p≈3.2ktok/12.9kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 81.2k; active 5.1k; cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok; ctx 31.0%; usable 33.5%; epoch turns 7; lifetime turns 7


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit u / completed / Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit user reports 2026
- Web search: Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2 / completed / Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2026 Reddit
- Web search: "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026 / completed / "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026

Draft:
You’re right — Google’s marketing is frustratingly vague. “Most generous quota, refreshed every five hours” sounds good until you see what users actually experience.

---

### What user reviews say about Google AI Ultra/Pro

**The quota is not really transparent:**
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users report a **hidden weekly cap** on top of it.
- Ultra users say they hit the wall in **30–40 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then face **multi-day lockouts** (1–5 days) even on the $200 plan.
- The dashboard shows a single percentage, but the real budget is reverse-engineered from usage patterns. People call it a “bait and switch.”
- Google has silently reduced limits multiple times without notice.

**What actually works in Antigravity:**
- Gemini 3.1 Pro/Flash are decent and fast.
- 1M-token context is real and useful.
- Flash-Lite prompts are free and don’t count against quota.
- Good if you mix coding with research, video, YouTube Premium, storage.

**What hurts productivity:**
- Claude Opus inside Antigravity burns quota fast and gets locked out.
- New model versions (e.g., Opus 4.7) have lagged behind native Claude.
- “High traffic” errors turning into multi-day cooldowns mid-workflow.

---

### What user reviews say about Claude Max

**More predictable:**
- Limits refresh every 5 hours, and users report **no hidden weekly ceiling** on Max


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit u / completed / Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit user reports 2026
- Web search: Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2 / completed / Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2026 Reddit
- Web search: "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026 / completed / "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026

Draft:
You’re right — Google’s marketing is frustratingly vague. “Most generous quota, refreshed every five hours” sounds good until you see what users actually experience.

---

### What user reviews say about Google AI Ultra/Pro

**The quota is not really transparent:**
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users report a **hidden weekly cap** on top of it.
- Ultra users say they hit the wall in **30–40 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then face **multi-day lockouts** (1–5 days) even on the $200 plan.
- The dashboard shows a single percentage, but the real budget is reverse-engineered from usage patterns. People call it a “bait and switch.”
- Google has silently reduced limits multiple times without notice.

**What actually works in Antigravity:**
- Gemini 3.1 Pro/Flash are decent and fast.
- 1M-token context is real and useful.
- Flash-Lite prompts are free and don’t count against quota.
- Good if you mix coding with research, video, YouTube Premium, storage.

**What hurts productivity:**
- Claude Opus inside Antigravity burns quota fast and gets locked out.
- New model versions (e.g., Opus 4.7) have lagged behind native Claude.
- “High traffic” errors turning into multi-day cooldowns mid-workflow.

---

### What user reviews say about Claude Max

**More predictable:**
- Limits refresh every 5 hours, and users report **no hidden weekly ceiling** on Max plans.
- Max 20x reportedly gives roughly **900 Opus messages per 5-hour window**.
- You can see where you stand; less “why am I locked out?”

**Better for deep coding work:**
- Consistent reports that Claude produces fewer syntax errors and needs fewer follow-up prompts.
- Opus 4.7 available sooner than in Antigravity.
- Users migrating from Google Ultra to Claude Max specifically for reliability.

** Downsides:**
- 200K context window vs Google’s 1M.
- Slower than Antigravity.
- Some users still burn through Max 20x in heavy sessions, but the lockout is a known 5-hour wait, not a surprise multi-day one.

---

### Direct answer:


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit u / completed / Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit user reports 2026
- Web search: Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2 / completed / Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2026 Reddit
- Web search: "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026 / completed / "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026

Draft:
You’re right — Google’s marketing is frustratingly vague. “Most generous quota, refreshed every five hours” sounds good until you see what users actually experience.

---

### What user reviews say about Google AI Ultra/Pro

**The quota is not really transparent:**
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users report a **hidden weekly cap** on top of it.
- Ultra users say they hit the wall in **30–40 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then face **multi-day lockouts** (1–5 days) even on the $200 plan.
- The dashboard shows a single percentage, but the real budget is reverse-engineered from usage patterns. People call it a “bait and switch.”
- Google has silently reduced limits multiple times without notice.

**What actually works in Antigravity:**
- Gemini 3.1 Pro/Flash are decent and fast.
- 1M-token context is real and useful.
- Flash-Lite prompts are free and don’t count against quota.
- Good if you mix coding with research, video, YouTube Premium, storage.

**What hurts productivity:**
- Claude Opus inside Antigravity burns quota fast and gets locked out.
- New model versions (e.g., Opus 4.7) have lagged behind native Claude.
- “High traffic” errors turning into multi-day cooldowns mid-workflow.

---

### What user reviews say about Claude Max

**More predictable:**
- Limits refresh every 5 hours, and users report **no hidden weekly ceiling** on Max plans.
- Max 20x reportedly gives roughly **900 Opus messages per 5-hour window**.
- You can see where you stand; less “why am I locked out?”

**Better for deep coding work:**
- Consistent reports that Claude produces fewer syntax errors and needs fewer follow-up prompts.
- Opus 4.7 available sooner than in Antigravity.
- Users migrating from Google Ultra to Claude Max specifically for reliability.

** Downsides:**
- 200K context window vs Google’s 1M.
- Slower than Antigravity.
- Some users still burn through Max 20x in heavy sessions, but the lockout is a known 5-hour wait, not a surprise multi-day one.

---

### Direct answer: where do you get more done per dollar?

| If your main work is… | Better choice |
|---|---|
| **Coding / refactoring / architecture / multi-step reasoning** | **Claude Max** — more reliable, better code quality, predictable limits |
| **Research / long documents / 1M-context tasks / multimodal** | Google AI Ultra — when it works, the context and speed are unmatched |
| **Heavy daily frontier-model use** | **Claude Max 20x** — user reports consistently show fewer lockouts and more actual work hours |
| **Mixed use where you can tolerate quota roulette** | Google AI Ultra 20x |

### My recommendation

Since you already have **Kimi for coding**, and you want a second subscription that actually lets


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit u / completed / Google AI Ultra Pro actual quota requests per 5 hours weekly limit user reports 2026
- Web search: Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2 / completed / Claude Max 20x vs Google AI Ultra user reviews productivity coding 2026 Reddit
- Web search: "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026 / completed / "Antigravity" vs "Claude Max" user experience rate limits 2026

Draft:
You’re right — Google’s marketing is frustratingly vague. “Most generous quota, refreshed every five hours” sounds good until you see what users actually experience.

---

### What user reviews say about Google AI Ultra/Pro

**The quota is not really transparent:**
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users report a **hidden weekly cap** on top of it.
- Ultra users say they hit the wall in **30–40 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then face **multi-day lockouts** (1–5 days) even on the $200 plan.
- The dashboard shows a single percentage, but the real budget is reverse-engineered from usage patterns. People call it a “bait and switch.”
- Google has silently reduced limits multiple times without notice.

**What actually works in Antigravity:**
- Gemini 3.1 Pro/Flash are decent and fast.
- 1M-token context is real and useful.
- Flash-Lite prompts are free and don’t count against quota.
- Good if you mix coding with research, video, YouTube Premium, storage.

**What hurts productivity:**
- Claude Opus inside Antigravity burns quota fast and gets locked out.
- New model versions (e.g., Opus 4.7) have lagged behind native Claude.
- “High traffic” errors turning into multi-day cooldowns mid-workflow.

---

### What user reviews say about Claude Max

**More predictable:**
- Limits refresh every 5 hours, and users report **no hidden weekly ceiling** on Max plans.
- Max 20x reportedly gives roughly **900 Opus messages per 5-hour window**.
- You can see where you stand; less “why am I locked out?”

**Better for deep coding work:**
- Consistent reports that Claude produces fewer syntax errors and needs fewer follow-up prompts.
- Opus 4.7 available sooner than in Antigravity.
- Users migrating from Google Ultra to Claude Max specifically for reliability.

** Downsides:**
- 200K context window vs Google’s 1M.
- Slower than Antigravity.
- Some users still burn through Max 20x in heavy sessions, but the lockout is a known 5-hour wait, not a surprise multi-day one.

---

### Direct answer: where do you get more done per dollar?

| If your main work is… | Better choice |
|---|---|
| **Coding / refactoring / architecture / multi-step reasoning** | **Claude Max** — more reliable, better code quality, predictable limits |
| **Research / long documents / 1M-context tasks / multimodal** | Google AI Ultra — when it works, the context and speed are unmatched |
| **Heavy daily frontier-model use** | **Claude Max 20x** — user reports consistently show fewer lockouts and more actual work hours |
| **Mixed use where you can tolerate quota roulette** | Google AI Ultra 20x |

### My recommendation

Since you already have **Kimi for coding**, and you want a second subscription that actually lets you work without hitting invisible walls:

**Get Claude Max 5x ($100) or 20x ($200).** For heavy use, 20x is the safer bet. It’s the closest productive replacement to ChatGPT Pro in terms of “sit down and actually get work done,” and user sentiment is strongly in its favor over Google Ultra for serious coding/reasoning.

Only go Google AI Ultra if you specifically need the **1M context** or the bundled Google perks, and you’re willing to deal with quota unpredictability. For raw getting-things-done, Claude wins right now.


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 83.2s
Time: model 77.7s, overhead 3.9s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 14.3k o 1.9k cache 84.0k/85%; p≈3.2ktok/12.9kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 81.2k; active 5.1k; cache 76.0k/95%; p≈3.1ktok; ctx 31.0%; usable 33.5%; epoch turns 7; lifetime turns 7


You’re right — Google’s marketing is frustratingly vague. “Most generous quota, refreshed every five hours” sounds good until you see what users actually experience.

---

### What user reviews say about Google AI Ultra/Pro

**The quota is not really transparent:**
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users report a **hidden weekly cap** on top of it.
- Ultra users say they hit the wall in **30–40 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then face **multi-day lockouts** (1–5 days) even on the $200 plan.
- The dashboard shows a single percentage, but the real budget is reverse-engineered from usage patterns. People call it a “bait and switch.”
- Google has silently reduced limits multiple times without notice.

**What actually works in Antigravity:**
- Gemini 3.1 Pro/Flash are decent and fast.
- 1M-token context is real and useful.
- Flash-Lite prompts are free and don’t count against quota.
- Good if you mix coding with research, video, YouTube Premium, storage.

**What hurts productivity:**
- Claude Opus inside Antigravity burns quota fast and gets locked out.
- New model versions (e.g., Opus 4.7) have lagged behind native Claude.
- “High traffic” errors turning into multi-day cooldowns mid-workflow.

---

### What user reviews say about Claude Max

**More predictable:**
- Limits refresh every 5 hours, and users report **no hidden weekly ceiling** on Max plans.
- Max 20x reportedly gives roughly **900 Opus messages per 5-hour window**.
- You can see where you stand; less “why am I locked out?”

**Better for deep coding work:**
- Consistent reports that Claude produces fewer syntax errors and needs fewer follow-up prompts.
- Opus 4.7 available sooner than in Antigravity.
- Users migrating from Google Ultra to Claude Max specifically for reliability.

** Downsides:**
- 200K context window vs Google’s 1M.
- Slower than Antigravity.
- Some users still burn through Max 20x in heavy sessions, but the lockout is a known 5-hour wait, not a surprise multi-day one.

---

### Direct answer: where do you get more done per dollar?

| If your main work is… | Better choice |
|---|---|
| **Coding / refactoring / architecture / multi-step reasoning** | **Claude Max** — more reliable, better code quality, predictable limits |
| **Research / long documents / 1M-context tasks / multimodal** | Google AI Ultra — when it works, the context and speed are unmatched |
| **Heavy daily frontier-model use** | **Claude Max 20x** — user reports consistently show fewer lockouts and more actual work hours |
| **Mixed use where you can tolerate quota roulette** | Google AI Ultra 20x |

### My recommendation

Since you already have **Kimi for coding**, and you want a second subscription that actually lets you work without hitting invisible walls:

**Get Claude Max 5x ($100) or 20x ($200).** For heavy use, 20x is the safer bet. It’s the closest productive replacement to ChatGPT Pro in terms of “sit down and actually get work done,” and user sentiment is strongly in its favor over Google Ultra for serious coding/reasoning.

Only go Google AI Ultra if you specifically need the **1M context** or the bundled Google perks, and you’re willing to deal with quota unpredictability. For raw getting-things-done, Claude wins right now.


* 🟢 Done
Stage: final reply sent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 85.4s
Time: model 77.7s, overhead 7.7s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 14.3k o 1.9k cache 84.0k/85%; p≈3.2ktok/12.9kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.2k; active 16.2k; cache 84.0k/85%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; guard stale 81.2k; epoch turns 7; lifetime turns 7


Unfortunately it's more like 137 and 275 euros for Claude 5x and 20x here in Germany. While Google ai ultra is 100 euros. That's why it's hard to tell


⚪ Received
Stage: queued for agent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.2k; active 16.2k; cache 84.0k/85%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


* ⚪ Queued
Stage: waiting for conversation turn
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 0.2s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.2k; active 16.2k; cache 84.0k/85%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


* 🟡 Working
Stage: building prompt
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 2.3s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.2k; active 16.2k; cache 84.0k/85%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 3.8s
Time: overhead 3.8s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: p≈3.0ktok/12.2kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.2k; active 16.2k; cache 84.0k/85%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Waiting for first model/tool update…


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
That


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
That price gap changes the calculation a lot.

At those German prices:
- **Claude Max 5x**: ~€137 (~$145)
- **Claude Max 20x**: ~€275 (~$290)
- **Google AI Ultra**: ~€100 (~$105)

Google AI Ultra is now roughly **half the price of Claude Max 20x** and **25% cheaper than Claude Max 5x**. Even if Google’s limits are flaky, you can afford to hit the wall and still come out ahead if it works even 50–60% of the time.

---

### Reframed recommendation

| If you… | Best pick |
|---|---|
| Need reliable, heavy daily coding and can afford the premium | Claude Max 20x (but you’re paying a lot for predictability) |
| Want the most


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
That price gap changes the calculation a lot.

At those German prices:
- **Claude Max 5x**: ~€137 (~$145)
- **Claude Max 20x**: ~€275 (~$290)
- **Google AI Ultra**: ~€100 (~$105)

Google AI Ultra is now roughly **half the price of Claude Max 20x** and **25% cheaper than Claude Max 5x**. Even if Google’s limits are flaky, you can afford to hit the wall and still come out ahead if it works even 50–60% of the time.

---

### Reframed recommendation

| If you… | Best pick |
|---|---|
| Need reliable, heavy daily coding and can afford the premium | Claude Max 20x (but you’re paying a lot for predictability) |
| Want the most raw usage per euro and can work around quota hiccups | **Google AI Ultra at €100** |
| Are unsure about your actual usage level | Claude Max 5x or Google AI Pro as a trial month |

Given the German pricing, I’d actually lean toward trying **Google AI Ultra for one month** first. Reasons:

- It’s cheap enough that even frustrating lockouts are tolerable.
- You already have **Kimi** as your reliable coding fallback, so you won’t be dead in the water when Google throttles you.
- You can test whether your real workflow hits the hidden weekly cap or not.
- If it turns out unusable, you’ve only spent €100 and can switch to Claude Max.

The main risk is productivity disruption mid-task. But since you have Kimi and this chat as backups, that risk is lower.

---


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
That price gap changes the calculation a lot.

At those German prices:
- **Claude Max 5x**: ~€137 (~$145)
- **Claude Max 20x**: ~€275 (~$290)
- **Google AI Ultra**: ~€100 (~$105)

Google AI Ultra is now roughly **half the price of Claude Max 20x** and **25% cheaper than Claude Max 5x**. Even if Google’s limits are flaky, you can afford to hit the wall and still come out ahead if it works even 50–60% of the time.

---

### Reframed recommendation

| If you… | Best pick |
|---|---|
| Need reliable, heavy daily coding and can afford the premium | Claude Max 20x (but you’re paying a lot for predictability) |
| Want the most raw usage per euro and can work around quota hiccups | **Google AI Ultra at €100** |
| Are unsure about your actual usage level | Claude Max 5x or Google AI Pro as a trial month |

Given the German pricing, I’d actually lean toward trying **Google AI Ultra for one month** first. Reasons:

- It’s cheap enough that even frustrating lockouts are tolerable.
- You already have **Kimi** as your reliable coding fallback, so you won’t be dead in the water when Google throttles you.
- You can test whether your real workflow hits the hidden weekly cap or not.
- If it turns out unusable, you’ve only spent €100 and can switch to Claude Max.

The main risk is productivity disruption mid-task. But since you have Kimi and this chat as backups, that risk is lower.

---

### Pragmatic plan

1. **Subscribe to Google AI Ultra (€100)** for one month.
2. Use it as your daily driver for chat/research and some coding.
3. Keep Kimi for heavy coding sessions, especially when Google locks you out.
4. Track how often you hit limits and how disruptive it is.
5. After a month, decide: stay with Google, upgrade to Claude Max 20x if you need more reliability, or keep the combo.

Does that sound reasonable, or do you want me to dig deeper into whether Google AI Ultra’s limits have stabilized recently?


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 29.3s
Time: model 22.5s, overhead 3.8s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 17.6k o 474 cache 84.0k/83%; p≈3.0ktok/12.2kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.2k; active 16.2k; cache 84.0k/85%; p≈3.2ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


That price gap changes the calculation a lot.

At those German prices:
- **Claude Max 5x**: ~€137 (~$145)
- **Claude Max 20x**: ~€275 (~$290)
- **Google AI Ultra**: ~€100 (~$105)

Google AI Ultra is now roughly **half the price of Claude Max 20x** and **25% cheaper than Claude Max 5x**. Even if Google’s limits are flaky, you can afford to hit the wall and still come out ahead if it works even 50–60% of the time.

---

### Reframed recommendation

| If you… | Best pick |
|---|---|
| Need reliable, heavy daily coding and can afford the premium | Claude Max 20x (but you’re paying a lot for predictability) |
| Want the most raw usage per euro and can work around quota hiccups | **Google AI Ultra at €100** |
| Are unsure about your actual usage level | Claude Max 5x or Google AI Pro as a trial month |

Given the German pricing, I’d actually lean toward trying **Google AI Ultra for one month** first. Reasons:

- It’s cheap enough that even frustrating lockouts are tolerable.
- You already have **Kimi** as your reliable coding fallback, so you won’t be dead in the water when Google throttles you.
- You can test whether your real workflow hits the hidden weekly cap or not.
- If it turns out unusable, you’ve only spent €100 and can switch to Claude Max.

The main risk is productivity disruption mid-task. But since you have Kimi and this chat as backups, that risk is lower.

---

### Pragmatic plan

1. **Subscribe to Google AI Ultra (€100)** for one month.
2. Use it as your daily driver for chat/research and some coding.
3. Keep Kimi for heavy coding sessions, especially when Google locks you out.
4. Track how often you hit limits and how disruptive it is.
5. After a month, decide: stay with Google, upgrade to Claude Max 20x if you need more reliability, or keep the combo.

Does that sound reasonable, or do you want me to dig deeper into whether Google AI Ultra’s limits have stabilized recently?


* 🟢 Done
Stage: final reply sent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 30.9s
Time: model 22.5s, overhead 8.4s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 17.6k o 474 cache 84.0k/83%; p≈3.0ktok/12.2kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 102.1k; active 18.1k; cache 84.0k/83%; p≈3.0ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


Yes please read more on ai ultra, what it actually includes in terms of model use, can I use this in opencode, and what do users report regarding the limits and output quality


⚪ Received
Stage: queued for agent
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 102.1k; active 18.1k; cache 84.0k/83%; p≈3.0ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


* ⚪ Queued
Stage: waiting for conversation turn
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 0.2s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 102.1k; active 18.1k; cache 84.0k/83%; p≈3.0ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


* 🟡 Working
Stage: building prompt
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 2.8s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 102.1k; active 18.1k; cache 84.0k/83%; p≈3.0ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 4.3s
Time: overhead 4.3s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: p≈2.9ktok/11.6kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 102.1k; active 18.1k; cache 84.0k/83%; p≈3.0ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (1):
- websearch / pending / tool_VWk0aKCDTFAlhvxbUIaTD39


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus thir / completed / Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus third party models
- Web search: Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026 / completed / Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026
- Web search: Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemin / completed / Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Opus


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus thir / completed / Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus third party models
- Web search: Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026 / completed / Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026
- Web search: Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemin / completed / Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Opus

Draft:
Here


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus thir / completed / Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus third party models
- Web search: Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026 / completed / Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026
- Web search: Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemin / completed / Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Opus

Draft:
Here is the fuller picture on Google AI Ultra.

---

### What Google AI Ultra includes

**Models available:**
- **Gemini 3.1 Pro / Gemini 3 Pro** — Google’s flagship models, 1M context window, 64K output tokens via API (but see below).
- **Gemini 3.5 Flash** — fast, cheaper, good for lighter tasks.
- **Nano Banana Pro** — image/video model.
- **Claude Opus 4.6 / Sonnet 4.6** — third-party models inside Antigravity.
- **Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think** — reasoning mode.
- **Deep Research** on Gemini 3.
- **Veo 3.1 Lite** — video generation (limited trial).
- **Project Mariner** — agentic web browsing.
- Non-AI perks: 30 TB storage, YouTube Premium, $100/mo Google Cloud credit (on some plans).

**Important caveat:** Access to third-party models and newer model versions inside


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus thir / completed / Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus third party models
- Web search: Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026 / completed / Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026
- Web search: Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemin / completed / Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Opus

Draft:
Here is the fuller picture on Google AI Ultra.

---

### What Google AI Ultra includes

**Models available:**
- **Gemini 3.1 Pro / Gemini 3 Pro** — Google’s flagship models, 1M context window, 64K output tokens via API (but see below).
- **Gemini 3.5 Flash** — fast, cheaper, good for lighter tasks.
- **Nano Banana Pro** — image/video model.
- **Claude Opus 4.6 / Sonnet 4.6** — third-party models inside Antigravity.
- **Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think** — reasoning mode.
- **Deep Research** on Gemini 3.
- **Veo 3.1 Lite** — video generation (limited trial).
- **Project Mariner** — agentic web browsing.
- Non-AI perks: 30 TB storage, YouTube Premium, $100/mo Google Cloud credit (on some plans).

**Important caveat:** Access to third-party models and newer model versions inside Antigravity has lagged. For example, Claude Opus 4.7 was released but Antigravity stayed on 4.6 for a while.

---

### Can you use it in OpenCode?

**Yes, but not with a regular API key.**

- Google AI Ultra is **OAuth-based through Antigravity**, not a traditional API key from AI Studio.
- There are **community OpenCode plugins** like `opencode-antigravity-auth` that let OpenCode authenticate to Antigravity via Google OAuth and use the models:
  - `google/antigravity-claude-opus-4-6-thinking`
  - `google/antigravity-claude-sonnet-4-6`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.1-pro`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.5-flash`
- These plugins route through your Google AI Ultra subscription quotas.
- You **cannot** simply plug


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus thir / completed / Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus third party models
- Web search: Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026 / completed / Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026
- Web search: Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemin / completed / Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Opus

Draft:
Here is the fuller picture on Google AI Ultra.

---

### What Google AI Ultra includes

**Models available:**
- **Gemini 3.1 Pro / Gemini 3 Pro** — Google’s flagship models, 1M context window, 64K output tokens via API (but see below).
- **Gemini 3.5 Flash** — fast, cheaper, good for lighter tasks.
- **Nano Banana Pro** — image/video model.
- **Claude Opus 4.6 / Sonnet 4.6** — third-party models inside Antigravity.
- **Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think** — reasoning mode.
- **Deep Research** on Gemini 3.
- **Veo 3.1 Lite** — video generation (limited trial).
- **Project Mariner** — agentic web browsing.
- Non-AI perks: 30 TB storage, YouTube Premium, $100/mo Google Cloud credit (on some plans).

**Important caveat:** Access to third-party models and newer model versions inside Antigravity has lagged. For example, Claude Opus 4.7 was released but Antigravity stayed on 4.6 for a while.

---

### Can you use it in OpenCode?

**Yes, but not with a regular API key.**

- Google AI Ultra is **OAuth-based through Antigravity**, not a traditional API key from AI Studio.
- There are **community OpenCode plugins** like `opencode-antigravity-auth` that let OpenCode authenticate to Antigravity via Google OAuth and use the models:
  - `google/antigravity-claude-opus-4-6-thinking`
  - `google/antigravity-claude-sonnet-4-6`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.1-pro`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.5-flash`
- These plugins route through your Google AI Ultra subscription quotas.
- You **cannot** simply plug a Gemini API key into Antigravity. Google has explicitly said there is no “bring your own key” setup for Antigravity CLI/IDE.

So OpenCode integration is possible, but it depends on a third-party OAuth plugin and Google’s Antigravity backend.

---

### What users report: limits and output quality

**Limits — mixed and often frustrating:**

- Some Ultra users report **never hitting limits** with moderate daily use.
- Many others report **hitting the wall in 30–60 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then waiting **hours to days**.
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users strongly suspect a **hidden weekly cap** that shrinks your per-window allowance as the week goes on.
- Quotas appear to be **“compute-based”** rather than transparent token counts


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus thir / completed / Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus third party models
- Web search: Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026 / completed / Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026
- Web search: Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemin / completed / Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Opus

Draft:
Here is the fuller picture on Google AI Ultra.

---

### What Google AI Ultra includes

**Models available:**
- **Gemini 3.1 Pro / Gemini 3 Pro** — Google’s flagship models, 1M context window, 64K output tokens via API (but see below).
- **Gemini 3.5 Flash** — fast, cheaper, good for lighter tasks.
- **Nano Banana Pro** — image/video model.
- **Claude Opus 4.6 / Sonnet 4.6** — third-party models inside Antigravity.
- **Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think** — reasoning mode.
- **Deep Research** on Gemini 3.
- **Veo 3.1 Lite** — video generation (limited trial).
- **Project Mariner** — agentic web browsing.
- Non-AI perks: 30 TB storage, YouTube Premium, $100/mo Google Cloud credit (on some plans).

**Important caveat:** Access to third-party models and newer model versions inside Antigravity has lagged. For example, Claude Opus 4.7 was released but Antigravity stayed on 4.6 for a while.

---

### Can you use it in OpenCode?

**Yes, but not with a regular API key.**

- Google AI Ultra is **OAuth-based through Antigravity**, not a traditional API key from AI Studio.
- There are **community OpenCode plugins** like `opencode-antigravity-auth` that let OpenCode authenticate to Antigravity via Google OAuth and use the models:
  - `google/antigravity-claude-opus-4-6-thinking`
  - `google/antigravity-claude-sonnet-4-6`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.1-pro`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.5-flash`
- These plugins route through your Google AI Ultra subscription quotas.
- You **cannot** simply plug a Gemini API key into Antigravity. Google has explicitly said there is no “bring your own key” setup for Antigravity CLI/IDE.

So OpenCode integration is possible, but it depends on a third-party OAuth plugin and Google’s Antigravity backend.

---

### What users report: limits and output quality

**Limits — mixed and often frustrating:**

- Some Ultra users report **never hitting limits** with moderate daily use.
- Many others report **hitting the wall in 30–60 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then waiting **hours to days**.
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users strongly suspect a **hidden weekly cap** that shrinks your per-window allowance as the week goes on.
- Quotas appear to be **“compute-based”** rather than transparent token counts, making them hard to predict.
- Google has **silently reduced limits multiple times** without clear notice.

**Output quality — depends heavily on model:**

| Model | User sentiment |
|---|---|
| **Claude Opus 4.6 in Antigravity** | Generally praised for coding quality, but burns quota fast. Some users report model-downgrade bugs (selecting Opus but getting Sonnet). |
| **Gemini 3.1 Pro** | Mixed. Some call it great for coding; others say it “talks to itself endlessly about tools,” is slow, self-truncates, or produces lower-quality code than Opus. A recent 3.1 Pro update seems to have helped output length. |
| **Gemini 3.5 Flash** | Often preferred over 3.1 Pro for small, well-defined tasks because it’s fast and cheap. |
| **Gemini 3 Pro / Deep Think** | Good


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Tools (3):
- Web search: Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus thir / completed / Google AI Ultra included models 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Claude Opus third party models
- Web search: Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026 / completed / Google AI Ultra OpenCode integration API key Antigravity CLI 2026
- Web search: Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemin / completed / Google AI Ultra user reports output quality limits Reddit 2026 Gemini 3.1 Pro Opus

Draft:
Here is the fuller picture on Google AI Ultra.

---

### What Google AI Ultra includes

**Models available:**
- **Gemini 3.1 Pro / Gemini 3 Pro** — Google’s flagship models, 1M context window, 64K output tokens via API (but see below).
- **Gemini 3.5 Flash** — fast, cheaper, good for lighter tasks.
- **Nano Banana Pro** — image/video model.
- **Claude Opus 4.6 / Sonnet 4.6** — third-party models inside Antigravity.
- **Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think** — reasoning mode.
- **Deep Research** on Gemini 3.
- **Veo 3.1 Lite** — video generation (limited trial).
- **Project Mariner** — agentic web browsing.
- Non-AI perks: 30 TB storage, YouTube Premium, $100/mo Google Cloud credit (on some plans).

**Important caveat:** Access to third-party models and newer model versions inside Antigravity has lagged. For example, Claude Opus 4.7 was released but Antigravity stayed on 4.6 for a while.

---

### Can you use it in OpenCode?

**Yes, but not with a regular API key.**

- Google AI Ultra is **OAuth-based through Antigravity**, not a traditional API key from AI Studio.
- There are **community OpenCode plugins** like `opencode-antigravity-auth` that let OpenCode authenticate to Antigravity via Google OAuth and use the models:
  - `google/antigravity-claude-opus-4-6-thinking`
  - `google/antigravity-claude-sonnet-4-6`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.1-pro`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.5-flash`
- These plugins route through your Google AI Ultra subscription quotas.
- You **cannot** simply plug a Gemini API key into Antigravity. Google has explicitly said there is no “bring your own key” setup for Antigravity CLI/IDE.

So OpenCode integration is possible, but it depends on a third-party OAuth plugin and Google’s Antigravity backend.

---

### What users report: limits and output quality

**Limits — mixed and often frustrating:**

- Some Ultra users report **never hitting limits** with moderate daily use.
- Many others report **hitting the wall in 30–60 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then waiting **hours to days**.
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users strongly suspect a **hidden weekly cap** that shrinks your per-window allowance as the week goes on.
- Quotas appear to be **“compute-based”** rather than transparent token counts, making them hard to predict.
- Google has **silently reduced limits multiple times** without clear notice.

**Output quality — depends heavily on model:**

| Model | User sentiment |
|---|---|
| **Claude Opus 4.6 in Antigravity** | Generally praised for coding quality, but burns quota fast. Some users report model-downgrade bugs (selecting Opus but getting Sonnet). |
| **Gemini 3.1 Pro** | Mixed. Some call it great for coding; others say it “talks to itself endlessly about tools,” is slow, self-truncates, or produces lower-quality code than Opus. A recent 3.1 Pro update seems to have helped output length. |
| **Gemini 3.5 Flash** | Often preferred over 3.1 Pro for small, well-defined tasks because it’s fast and cheap. |
| **Gemini 3 Pro / Deep Think** | Good for reasoning, but slow. |

**Hard output-token cap in Antigravity:**
- Antigravity appears to cap output at **16,384 tokens per turn** even though the underlying models support 64K+.
- For Claude, `max_thinking_length` is reportedly capped at **1,024


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: kimi-for-coding/k2p7
Elapsed: 48.6s
Time: model 42.8s, overhead 4.3s
Backend: ses_0fd6217abffeFLZwdItIeaoarc; Label: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z
Turn: i 15.5k o 1.0k cache 104.7k/87%; p≈2.9ktok/11.6kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 102.1k; active 18.1k; cache 84.0k/83%; p≈3.0ktok; ctx 38.2%; usable 41.4%; epoch turns 8; lifetime turns 8


Here is the fuller picture on Google AI Ultra.

---

### What Google AI Ultra includes

**Models available:**
- **Gemini 3.1 Pro / Gemini 3 Pro** — Google’s flagship models, 1M context window, 64K output tokens via API (but see below).
- **Gemini 3.5 Flash** — fast, cheaper, good for lighter tasks.
- **Nano Banana Pro** — image/video model.
- **Claude Opus 4.6 / Sonnet 4.6** — third-party models inside Antigravity.
- **Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think** — reasoning mode.
- **Deep Research** on Gemini 3.
- **Veo 3.1 Lite** — video generation (limited trial).
- **Project Mariner** — agentic web browsing.
- Non-AI perks: 30 TB storage, YouTube Premium, $100/mo Google Cloud credit (on some plans).

**Important caveat:** Access to third-party models and newer model versions inside Antigravity has lagged. For example, Claude Opus 4.7 was released but Antigravity stayed on 4.6 for a while.

---

### Can you use it in OpenCode?

**Yes, but not with a regular API key.**

- Google AI Ultra is **OAuth-based through Antigravity**, not a traditional API key from AI Studio.
- There are **community OpenCode plugins** like `opencode-antigravity-auth` that let OpenCode authenticate to Antigravity via Google OAuth and use the models:
  - `google/antigravity-claude-opus-4-6-thinking`
  - `google/antigravity-claude-sonnet-4-6`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.1-pro`
  - `google/antigravity-gemini-3.5-flash`
- These plugins route through your Google AI Ultra subscription quotas.
- You **cannot** simply plug a Gemini API key into Antigravity. Google has explicitly said there is no “bring your own key” setup for Antigravity CLI/IDE.

So OpenCode integration is possible, but it depends on a third-party OAuth plugin and Google’s Antigravity backend.

---

### What users report: limits and output quality

**Limits — mixed and often frustrating:**

- Some Ultra users report **never hitting limits** with moderate daily use.
- Many others report **hitting the wall in 30–60 minutes of heavy Opus use**, then waiting **hours to days**.
- Google advertises a **5-hour refresh**, but users strongly suspect a **hidden weekly cap** that shrinks your per-window allowance as the week goes on.
- Quotas appear to be **“compute-based”** rather than transparent token counts, making them hard to predict.
- Google has **silently reduced limits multiple times** without clear notice.

**Output quality — depends heavily on model:**

| Model | User sentiment |
|---|---|
| **Claude Opus 4.6 in Antigravity** | Generally praised for coding quality, but burns quota fast. Some users report model-downgrade bugs (selecting Opus but getting Sonnet). |
| **Gemini 3.1 Pro** | Mixed. Some call it great for coding; others say it “talks to itself endlessly about tools,” is slow, self-truncates, or produces lower-quality code than Opus. A recent 3.1 Pro update seems to have helped output length. |
| **Gemini 3.5 Flash** | Often preferred over 3.1 Pro for small, well-defined tasks because it’s fast and cheap. |
| **Gemini 3 Pro / Deep Think** | Good for reasoning, but slow. |

**Hard output-token cap in Antigravity:**
- Antigravity appears to cap output at **16,384 tokens per turn** even though the underlying models support 64K+.
- For Claude, `max_thinking_length` is reportedly capped at **1,024 tokens**.
- This is a significant limitation for agentic coding where long outputs matter.

---

### Bottom line

Google AI Ultra at €100 is a **good value on paper**, especially with the bundled perks. But for serious coding/agentic work, user reports are very mixed:

- **Pros:** cheap, fast Gemini models, 1M context, Claude access, lots of bundled extras.
- **Cons:** opaque quotas, hidden weekly caps, output-token limits, model-version lag, quality inconsistency.

If your main use is **chat + research + lighter coding**, it’s probably great. If you want **deep agentic coding like Codex/Claude Code**, the A


ntigravity platform is still rougher and more unpredictable than native Claude Code.

Given that you already have Kimi for coding, Google AI Ultra could work well as your **second subscription for chat, research, and quick tasks** — but I’d keep expectations modest for replacing Claude Code fully.