Skip to content

We Used Codex Pro $100 for 30 Days: 14 Early Resets and $3,221 of API Value

Updated November 3, 2026 · first published November 3, 2026

In October we ran OpenAI's Codex on the Pro $100 plan and logged every request. The weekly limit refreshed early 14 times in 30 days, giving 15 weekly windows instead of the usual four or five. The usage was worth $3,221 at API list prices, about 32 times the $100 plan price.

14
early resets in 30 days
15
weekly windows (a normal month has 4 or 5)
$3,221
API-list-price value of the usage
97.9%
of input tokens came from cache

Published 3 November 2026 · data 1 to 31 October 2026 (UTC) · method and caveats below

This is the month-long follow-up to our 12-day Codex log. Same method, same machine, now over 268,978 requests from 2,847 session files, 1 to 31 October 2026 (UTC). The figures are list-price equivalents, not what OpenAI charged, and we say below exactly what they leave out.

What surprised us

  1. A reset about every two days. 15 windows in a month where the calendar gives you 4.3. The median window lasted 31 hours, not seven days.
  2. Resets followed burn-outs. 9 of the 14 early resets came right after a window that had reached 95% or more. The logs cannot say whether each was an OpenAI-wide reset or a banked reset we redeemed; they only show the gauge jumping back before its scheduled time.
  3. Almost everything was cache. 97.9% of the 37.0 billion input tokens were cached reads, which list at a fraction of the normal input price.
  4. The cheap model did the volume, the expensive one did the damage. GPT-6 Astra made 1.1% of requests and 17% of the value. GPT-6 Luna made 59% of requests and 8.5% of the value.

The month, window by window

Codex Pro $100: 15 weekly windows in October 2026Each bar is one weekly window. The dashed line shows how long the window was scheduled to run. A new window opened early 14 times.Oct 1Oct 5Oct 10Oct 15Oct 20Oct 25Oct 31W1$81 · 100%W2$35 · 14%W3$182 · 98%W4$237 · 100%W5$227 · 100%W6$224 · 100%W7$170 · 85%W8$184 · 83%W9$233 · 100%W10$246 · 100%W11$253 · 100%W12$164 · 82%W13$268 · 93%W14$292 · 100%W15$423 · 100%API value · gauge at end
Each bar is one weekly window, October 2026 (UTC). The amber dot marks a window that opened before the previous one was scheduled to end; the dashed line shows the time that was still left on that earlier clock. Bright bars reached 95% or more of the weekly gauge.

Window 1 is partial: our logs start on 1 October with the gauge already at 48%. Window 15 was scheduled to run to 4 November; its dashed line is cut at the edge of the chart.

WindowOpened (UTC)ActiveGaugeAPI valueRequestsOpened by
W1Oct 1 09:3623 h48% to 100%$814,699start of data
W2Oct 2 08:4912 h0% to 14%$356,663early
W3Oct 2 21:1294 h0% to 98%$18228,786early
W4Oct 7 05:5917 h0% to 100%$23722,906early
W5Oct 8 06:3065 h0% to 100%$22724,143early
W6Oct 11 04:1323 h0% to 100%$22425,648early
W7Oct 13 06:4548 h0% to 85%$17019,569early
W8Oct 15 06:1362 h0% to 83%$18427,776early
W9Oct 17 20:4047 h0% to 100%$23319,486early
W10Oct 20 08:5156 h0% to 100%$24614,719early
W11Oct 22 17:1224 h0% to 100%$25313,015early
W12Oct 23 17:4731 h0% to 82%$1645,423early
W13Oct 25 07:0518 h0% to 93%$2686,810early
W14Oct 26 07:1731 h0% to 100%$2929,567early
W15Oct 28 07:3270 h0% to 100%$42339,755early

What was a window worth?

API-list-price value of each Codex weekly window, October 2026Fifteen bars. Fully used windows were worth between $182 and $423; the average was $258. The plan costs $100 a month.$0$100$200$300$400$81W1$35W2$182W3$237W4$227W5$224W6$170W7$184W8$233W9$246W10$253W11$164W12$268W13$292W14$423W15$100 plan priceaverage fully used window $258Bright bars: window reached 95% or more. Dim bars: reset or stopped earlier.
API-list-price value of each window. The 9 windows that were fully used ranged from $182 to $423; the average was $258. Every window except W1 (partial) and W2 was worth more than the plan's full monthly price at list rates.

A fully used window was worth $258 on average, but the spread is wide ($182 to $423). The biggest, window 15, ran for 70 hours and 39,755 requests. Value per percent of gauge is not constant, because it depends on the model mix and how much of the context was cached.

Why this is higher than our earlier $175 median

Our earlier multiplier article measured $100 to $234 per full window, median $175, over six windows between 27 September and 8 October. This month's 9 fully used windows ran $182 to $423, with a median of $237 and a mean of $258. It is the same method on different weeks and a different model mix, so the two sets are not directly comparable. We have not isolated one cause for the difference; the point is that a full window's list-price value is a range, not a fixed number.

What would a reset-free month have been?

Estimate, not measurement: with one natural window a week, a 31-day month holds 31 / 7 = 4.4 windows. At the average fully used window ($258), that is about $1,141. We measured $3,221, so the early resets made the month worth roughly 2.8 times a no-reset month, or about $2,080 more at list prices. Treat the $1,141 as a rough baseline: our window values varied by more than 2x.

Which models used the plan?

Share of requests versus share of API value by modelGPT-6 Luna made most requests but little of the value; GPT-6 Astra made about one percent of requests and about seventeen percent of the value.Requests33%59%6%API value64%17%8%7%GPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 AstraGPT-6 LunaGPT-6.1 TerraGPT-6 SolAuto-review (unpriced)
Share of requests (top) versus share of API-list value (bottom) by model. Unlabelled slivers are under 5%.
ModelRequestsShareAPI valueShare of value
GPT-6.1 Sol88,13132.8%$2,07564.4%
GPT-6 Astra3,0661.1%$54917.1%
GPT-6 Luna158,53958.9%$2748.5%
GPT-6.1 Terra16,0005.9%$2226.9%
GPT-6 Sol2,8171.0%$1013.1%
Auto-review (unpriced)4250.2%unpriced-

GPT-6.1 Sol carried 64% of the value. The lesson is the same one we see in API bills: request counts say little about spend. Count value by model, not requests. See cost per successful task for the measure that matters once you add retries.

How we measured it

What the numbers leave out

What to take from it

  1. Measure per window, not per month. A monthly average hid windows from $182 to $423.
  2. Log the gauge and the reset time with every request. It is the only way to see an early reset after the fact.
  3. Watch cache share and model mix. They moved the value more than request counts did. For the mechanics, see Codex prompt caching cost.
  4. Plan the reset, do not count on it. Read when to redeem a banked reset and the dated reset history before you build a workflow around one.

Frequently asked questions

How often does Codex Pro $100 reset?

In our October 2026 logs the weekly limit refreshed early 14 times in 30 days, about every two days, giving 15 weekly windows. 9 of those followed a window that had reached 95% or more. The logs cannot tell an OpenAI-wide reset from a banked reset that was redeemed.

How much usage do you get on Codex Pro $100?

We measured $3,221 of usage at API list prices over 30 days, across 268,978 requests. A fully used weekly window averaged $258 (range $182 to $423). This is list-price value, not what OpenAI charged.

Is Codex Pro $100 worth it for heavy use?

At list prices our month was worth about 32 times the $100 plan price, but that depends on early resets, which OpenAI can change, and on our model mix. Measure your own windows before relying on it.

Does the Codex weekly limit really last seven days?

The window is 10,080 minutes, but in October our median window lasted 31 hours of activity because early resets opened new windows before the old ones ended.

Why is this higher than your earlier $175 median per window?

The earlier figure covered six full windows from 27 September to 8 October ($100 to $234). October's 9 fully used windows ranged $182 to $423 with a median of $237. Different weeks and a different model mix, so the sets are not directly comparable.

Which model used the most of the plan?

GPT-6.1 Sol accounted for 64% of list-price value. GPT-6 Luna made 59% of requests but only 8.5% of the value, and GPT-6 Astra made 1.1% of requests and 17%.

Related


Want this applied to your stack? Bring the provider bills, gateway logs, and top workflows; we will map the cost drivers and savings path. Book a free audit →

Back to finopsllm.com