AI Cost Watch

AI Cost Watch

Dated cost notes, model guides, and worked examples — with the assumptions and arithmetic on the page.

Get Scruuge's AI Cost Watch

Cautionary tales and cost wins — when there's something real to say. No spam.

No spam. Unsubscribe any time — or email us and we’ll remove you.

Featured — Oct 14, 2026

The model price is only the first line of the bill.

Three transparent worked costs: a subscription, an API workload, and an agent run. The assumptions, the arithmetic, and the costs a model price leaves out. No new quality benchmarks.

Read the full piece →

Sep 2026

Where System One models win — and where they don't

A new class of model returns a label or a probability, never text — and it's decided the live card on this page. Describe a task, watch it pick a class, and see the receipt: time, tokens, and cost.

Read the full piece →

Sep 2026

The Open Model Map — where open models actually win

AT&T pushes ~45B tokens/day and holds costs flat by routing 25–40% through open models. The honest translation for teams 1/10,000th the size: three dials, a dated use-case fit table, and where open still loses.

Read the full piece →

Jun 2026

Tokenmaxxing & the Cache Trap — when 'switch models to save' backfires

Only 8–16% of tasks need a premium model, yet teams pick premium 85% of the time. But naive model-switching in long sessions can cost 4.9× MORE — the honest version, building on AT&T's TM Forum MoDaaS research.

Read the full piece →

The Surprise Ledger · No. 3

The test suite said READY. Three of five recommendations didn't exist.

One unexpected finding a week, from real work — with the evidence, so you can check it. Read this week’s →

The Watch

What’s happening to AI costs — curated, sourced, and cut down to what matters.

vendor pricing

Oct 14, 2026

The model price is only the first line of the bill.

Source: Scruuge Cost Watch · provider documentation and illustrative arithmetic

Scruuge’s TLDR

Test the cheaper candidate, check your cache hits, and consider batching before changing a model that already works. Three dated calculations show the assumptions. No models were run for this edition.

Read the full breakdown: The model price is only the first line of the bill. →
market

Sep 2026

Volume up 5×, cost flat — AT&T's open-model tokenomics

Source: Mark Austin (VP Data Science, AT&T) to Fierce Network · AT&T 'The Tokenomics Equation' · AMD newsroom, 2026

8B → 45Btokens/day in roughly a year — with total AI cost held approximately flat, via routing and open models, per AT&T's own account.
65–70%target share of tokens routed through open models (25–40% today); reported reductions ~80–90% on the work that moved — AMD's account says 80%, Fierce's says 90%; we cite the spread.

Scruuge’s TLDR

This is the same AT&T team whose research underpins our cache-trap breakdown — now saying the quiet part at Fortune-50 scale: routing is the discipline, open models are where the easy majority of tokens go, and the hard minority stays on frontier models on purpose. The 90% headline hides the router and the fine-tuning it took; our Open Model Map translates which of those moves survive at small-firm volume.

Read the full breakdown: Volume up 5×, cost flat — AT&T's open-model tokenomics →
research

Aug 2026

Bake-off № 1 — a $0.005 model matched a $0.36 model

Source: Scruuge bake-off · one task, four models, verbatim answers

~70×cheaper: GLM-5.3-flash at $0.0051/answer reached Sonnet-class quality on a genuinely hard task (Sonnet ≈ $0.36, Opus ≈ $1.70).
16×the price of the cheapest model — and far worse: Haiku (≈$0.08) failed by CONFABULATING, inventing incidents and inverting facts, not by being vague.

Scruuge’s TLDR

Cheap didn't mean bad and pricier didn't mean safe — the cheapest model was excellent and the second-cheapest was the one that would have hurt you. Fit for the task is the axis, not price in either direction. That's why we run the real task instead of quoting a leaderboard.

Read the full breakdown: Bake-off № 1 — a $0.005 model matched a $0.36 model →
market

Aug 2026

Nobody upgraded — the newest frontier model won 3.5% of spend

Source: Ramp AI Index (~70,000 companies' card spend) · Financial Times, 23 Aug 2026

3.5% vs 28%share of Anthropic spend (Jul 2026): the newest Opus 5, a month after launch, versus the older Opus 4.8 — a market declining an upgrade, in real billing data.
8%Fable 5's share — the index states plainly that 'Fable's cost has made it a less popular model.' Not quality. Cost.

Scruuge’s TLDR

The best model available and the model people actually pay for are two different things. Your peers already voted, with their credit cards, for good-enough-and-cheaper. You're not behind for staying put — you're behind if you never made the choice deliberately.

Read the full breakdown: Nobody upgraded — the newest frontier model won 3.5% of spend →
market

Aug 2026

You can no longer wait for the next model to fix your costs

Source: Drew Breunig (via Simon Willison)

era over"Prior to Fable, it felt silly to waste too much time improving your coding harness or context strategies. A new model would arrive at the same price (or cheaper!) and paper over most of your problems."

Scruuge’s TLDR

Deferring optimization used to be rational — the next release arrived cheaper and papered over your problems. That curve flattened. The work you were sensibly putting off (routing, context discipline, compiling repeats) just became the work.

Read the full breakdown: You can no longer wait for the next model to fix your costs →
research

Aug 2026

Enterprise AI usage grew 7× in 9 months — and half of it is documentation

Source: 'How Organizations Use AI: Evidence from ChatGPT' (Chatterji, Holtz, Rakholia, Tambe, Weeratunga) · ChatGPT Enterprise data

7×aggregate output-token growth in 9 months (Jun 2025 → Mar 2026), and ~4× deepening WITHIN firms that had already adopted — measured Jevons: usage compounds, so the bill does too.
>50%of active enterprise users do documentation and technical writing — the single largest category, and exactly the high-volume routine work a cheap fast model handles well.
1,764 orgs17.4M messages analyzed. But: ChatGPT Enterprise data only, and the paper contains NO cost data — it never discusses price, inference expense, or ROI.

Scruuge’s TLDR

The first hard measurement of what enterprises actually do with AI: usage grew 7× in nine months, and the biggest single category is documentation and technical writing. The paper never mentions cost — but that combination is the whole ballgame. Your highest-volume workload is also your most routable, and it's almost certainly running on whatever the default model is.

Read the full breakdown: Enterprise AI usage grew 7× in 9 months — and half of it is documentation →
research

Jul 2026

You didn't type 3.77 billion tokens — 96% was reused input

Source: Nate B. Jones — '15 rules' to stop token piling (token-saver skill, Ringer)

96%of one power user's 3.77 billion tokens in a single day was REUSED input — the whole conversation re-sent from the top every turn — not anything a human typed.
~55ktokens of tool definitions a typical multi-server setup (GitHub+Slack+Sentry+Grafana) burns before the model does anything — Anthropic-published.

Scruuge’s TLDR

Every message re-sends the entire conversation — that's how LLMs fake memory — so your 10th message pays for the 9 before it, and every retry multiplies it. The fix isn't a bigger context window; it's keeping your desk clean: start fresh when the job changes, carry the artifact not the argument, and store answers you can look up.

Read the full breakdown: You didn't type 3.77 billion tokens — 96% was reused input →
market

Jul 2026

Open source isn't automatically cheaper — Kimi K3 breaks the assumption

Source: Moonshot Kimi K3 (open weights, late Jul) · a widely-shared analysis

~64 GPUsaccelerators for top performance — a corporate footprint, not a home rig. 'Free weights' still cost real compute to serve.
~$15/Moutput-token price if you rent it — frontier-tier, not a bargain — AND it's token-inefficient (more tokens to reach an answer), so the meter runs longer at that rate.
3 multiplierstotal cost = price × tokens-to-answer × serving footprint. A 'cheap' open model can lose on all three and cost MORE than a terse closed frontier model.

Scruuge’s TLDR

Open-weights ≠ automatically cheaper. Judge a model by the finished bill, not the per-token rate: a verbose 'budget' model on a big footprint can beat a pricier frontier one. Pick open source for control, fine-tuning, and resilience — not a blanket cost win. Don't generalize DeepSeek's one serving win into a law.

Read the full breakdown: Open source isn't automatically cheaper — Kimi K3 breaks the assumption →
market

Jul 2026

88% deployed AI; only 39% can prove it paid off

Source: Cursor — 'CFOs and the New Economics of AI' (Jordan Topoleski)

88% / 39%of organizations have deployed AI, but only 39% can trace that investment to enterprise-level EBIT impact — a measurement gap, not a tech gap.
7–9×cost variance across model families for the same work (per request, and per accepted line of code) — the biggest controllable line item. 84% of power users already run multiple models weekly.
16.5% vs 5.1%median YoY revenue growth, highest vs lowest token-usage quintile — heavier AI usage correlates with growth, not waste. But Jevons: efficiency raises usage, so the bill rises too.

Scruuge’s TLDR

You will not optimize your way to a flat AI bill — cheaper tokens get spent on more (Jevons). Spend isn't the enemy; unmeasured spend is. Cut the waste (floor), steer the rest toward where it compounds into revenue (ceiling), and measure per-outcome, not per-token.

Read the full breakdown: 88% deployed AI; only 39% can prove it paid off →
research

Jul 2026

DeepSeek made intelligence ~7× cheaper to serve — and published the recipe

Source: DeepSeek DSpark paper (MIT-licensed) · Deutsche Bank cost estimate

~7×more users served on identical hardware — 60–85% faster per user, quality mathematically identical, no retraining (vendor-reported, pending third-party confirmation).
~1.5%of top US frontier-model cost for most everyday tasks on DeepSeek V4 Pro, per a Deutsche Bank estimate — 'price gravity' that resets the floor for everyone.

Scruuge’s TLDR

The race stopped being 'who's smartest' and became intelligence per dollar, per second, per watt. A chip-starved lab just lapped the field on that scoreboard and gave away the blueprints — so the 'best model' you picked last quarter is probably not the one you should pay for now.

Read the full breakdown: DeepSeek made intelligence ~7× cheaper to serve — and published the recipe →
market

Jul 2026

Cheap execution is the floor, not the strategy

Source: Cost Engineering · on where AI value moves (Hashimoto's $40 test, Stripe)

$1 vs $9on the task everyone knows how to ask for, a cheap model ties the frontier — so routing to cheap is real, and about to be table stakes.
$40the frontier-only job no backlog contained — a result even a world-class engineer couldn't reach alone. That's the ceiling routing can't touch.

Scruuge’s TLDR

Cutting your bill is the floor — necessary, and soon table stakes for every competitor. The ceiling is where you point the frontier: the questions no one else thought to ask. We'll cut the floor honestly, then tell you when cost was never your real constraint.

Read the full breakdown: Cheap execution is the floor, not the strategy →
research

Jul 2026

Model routing — plan with the best, execute with the cheap

Source: Cost Engineering · a widely-shared model-routing walkthrough (recomputed)

~68%cut on a single feature by planning with a frontier model and executing with a good cheap one — same plan, same quality bar.
~5×output tokens cost roughly 5× input on a frontier model — so pay frontier where output is smallest (planning), wholesale where it's largest (execution).

Scruuge’s TLDR

Best model to plan, good-enough model to execute. You're not buying a smarter AI for the whole job — you're buying judgment for the 10% that needs it and paying wholesale for the 90% that doesn't. Route by task, never mid-session.

Read the full breakdown: Model routing — plan with the best, execute with the cheap →
research

Jul 2026

Compiled AI — stop paying to re-reason the same thing

Source: INXM (the '#compiledAI' post)

1× vs 500×reason once and run forever, vs re-deriving the same context every single run — where the tokens actually go.

Scruuge’s TLDR

The token bill is a symptom; the disease is re-reasoning. Use AI to figure a repeating task out ONCE, compile the answer into deterministic automation, then run that — not the model — every time after.

Read the full breakdown: Compiled AI — stop paying to re-reason the same thing →
market

Jun 2026

Companies are blowing their entire annual AI budget in months

Source: Financial Times (via Yahoo Finance)

~4 monthsUber gave ~5,000 engineers an AI coding tool and burned its whole annual AI budget in about four months.
26%of organizations have real-time visibility into what running AI at scale actually costs (i.e. 74% are flying blind).
Q1OpenAI's Sam Altman: customers say they 'spent my entire 2026 budget in Q1' and ask for efficiency.

Scruuge’s TLDR

You can't cut what you can't see — and roughly three in four teams can't. Uber isn't an outlier; it's what usage-based pricing does without a meter. Scruuge is the two-minute meter you run before finance finds out.

vendor pricing

Jun 2026

Anthropic quietly doubled its own Claude Code cost estimate

Source: Anthropic docs (updated Apr 15) · flagged by Ed Zitron; reported by Fortune/AOL

2×Anthropic's own per-developer Claude Code estimate roughly doubled — ~$6/day → ~$13/day.
$150–250per developer per month, by Anthropic's updated documentation.
>$150ka single employee's monthly AI token bill, at the extreme.

Scruuge’s TLDR

When the vendor quietly doubles its OWN cost estimate, that's not a rounding error — it's the trajectory. The meter only spins faster from here. Map your waste before the next 'quiet update.'

Read the full breakdown: Anthropic quietly doubled its own Claude Code cost estimate →
research

Jun 2026

Cache-aware routing cuts LLM cost 50–90% (TM Forum MoDaaS)

Source: AT&T CDO · TM Forum MoDaaS (TM Forum Copenhagen 2026)

8–16%of tasks actually need the premium model — yet teams pick it 85% of the time.
4.9×how much MORE naive model-switching can cost in long cached sessions.

Scruuge’s TLDR

Hard proof the waste is real — and a warning we took to heart: switching models to save can backfire in long sessions. Switch your default, not your session.

Read the full breakdown: Cache-aware routing cuts LLM cost 50–90% (TM Forum MoDaaS) →
research

Aug 2026

125 billion parameters, 6 billion doing the work

Source: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next (via Simon Willison)

125B / 6Btotal vs ACTIVE parameters in a mixture-of-experts model — you pay for what activates per request, not the headline size. It's why parameter counts tell you almost nothing about price.

Scruuge’s TLDR

Headline parameter counts are marketing; active parameters are the bill. A 'huge' MoE model can be cheap to run and a 'small' dense one expensive — always ask what actually fires per request.

Read the full breakdown: 125 billion parameters, 6 billion doing the work →
vendor pricing

Jun 2026

GitHub Copilot moves to usage-based billing

Source: GitHub

flat → meteredCopilot shifts from a flat seat price to paying for what you generate.

Scruuge’s TLDR

Flat-rate AI is ending. Usage-based billing means your bill now scales with every token your team burns — including the 40–60% that's pure waste. The teams that mapped that waste first will feel this least.

market

Jun 2026

Nvidia VP: 'the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees'

Source: Axios / Fortune (Bryan Catanzaro, VP applied deep learning, Nvidia)

compute > payrollFor some AI-heavy teams, compute now outweighs the salaries it was meant to save.

Scruuge’s TLDR

When a chip-maker's own VP says compute costs more than the humans, the 'AI is basically free' era is over. Budget for it like the real line item it's become — then trim it.

research

Jun 2026

MIT: 95% of enterprise AI pilots deliver no measurable financial return

Source: MIT NANDA initiative (as reported)

95%of enterprise AI pilots fail to deliver a measurable financial return (MIT NANDA).

Scruuge’s TLDR

The uncomfortable half of the story: a lot of AI spend isn't paying for itself. Scruuge's honest line — the problem is usually the WASTE, not the tool. Cut the tokenmaxxing before you conclude AI doesn't work.