AICODA
Compare real value

Find the AI coding subscription that delivers real value.

We evaluate 12 plans and 17 models across real-world coding benchmarks, usage limits, and reliability so you can choose with confidence.

▱
12
Plans
◇
17
Models
⌁
6
Benchmarks
◷
Updated
JUN 9, 2026
profile
opencode

opencode Go

DeepSeek V4 Pro
61.4 value index
value
61.4 /100
coding
61.4 /100
reliability
62.7 /100
$10/mo · Go

☆ Strong value performance makes opencode Go the current top pick.

A managed gateway that resells 14 curated models — GLM-5/5.1, Kimi K2.5/K2.6, MiMo-V2.5/-Pro, MiniMax M2.5/M2.7/M3, Qwen3.6/3.7 Plus & Qwen3.7 Max, DeepSeek V4 Pro/Flash — under one dollar-denominated quota, usable from opencode or any other coding agent. Ranked here by DeepSeek V4 Pro, the highest-scoring included model; the seven older/smaller variants in the lineup aren't tracked individually. $5 first month, then $10/month.
Xiaomi MiMo

Xiaomi MiMo Token Plan

MiMo V2.5 Pro
60.9 value index
value
60.9 /100
coding
60.9 /100
reliability
64.2 /100
$6.00/mo · Lite

☆ Xiaomi MiMo Token Plan stays close with balanced scores and credible coding depth.

Prices and credit totals are from the annual plan (effective USD/month and credits/month shown); a monthly-billing option (~12% higher) and a first-year "New User Offer" promo also exist. Credits are a shared pool across all 9 MiMo models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro ships as fully open MIT-licensed weights.
Z.ai

GLM Coding Plan

GLM-5.1
59.5 value index
value
59.5 /100
coding
59.5 /100
reliability
73.5 /100
$10/mo · Lite

☆ Competitive pricing and steady day-to-day performance keep GLM Coding Plan in the top three.

All plans 12 plans

PlanDetails
OP
opencode Go •
DeepSeek V4 Pro
$10
Go
61.4 3/6
61.4
62.7
1M53.2 t/sOPEN
XI
Xiaomi MiMo Token Plan •
MiMo V2.5 Pro
$6.00
Lite
60.9 3/6
60.9
64.2
1M41.1 t/sOPEN
Z
GLM Coding Plan
GLM-5.1
$10
Lite
59.5 3/6
59.5
73.5
203K57.9 t/sOPEN
DS
DeepSeek API •
DeepSeek V4 Pro
$16
pay-per-token
61.4 3/6
51.4
70.4
1M53.2 t/sOPEN
K
Kimi Membership + Kimi Code
Kimi K2.6
$19
Moderato
61.1 3/6
47.8
66.7
262K44.1 t/sOPEN
CU
Cursor Pro •
Cursor Composer 2.5
$20
Pro
61.4 1/6
47.2
60.0
200K——
M
MiniMax Token Plan •
MiniMax M3
$20
Plus
60.6 1/6
46.5
67.6
1.05M38.8 t/sOPEN
x
SuperGrok + Grok Build •
Grok 4.3
$30
SuperGrok
60.0 1/6
40.7
63.9
1M186.9 t/s—
◎
ChatGPT Pro + Codex •
GPT-5.5
$100
Pro 5x
69.0 6/6
34.5
74.4
1.05M63.4 t/s—
AI
Claude Max •
Claude Opus 4.7
$100
Max 5x
67.9 6/6
34.0
75.7
1M——
Q
Qwen Coding Plan •
Qwen3.6-27B
$50
Pro
57.3 3/6
33.7
62.0
——OPEN
G
Google AI + Antigravity •
Gemini 3.1 Pro
$100
AI Ultra 5x
63.9 4/6
32.0
72.7
1M139.8 t/s—

ⓘ Scoring combines benchmark performance, real-world task success, usage limits, and price into Coding, Value, and Reliability (0–100).

Learn our methodology →

Methodology

Coding score

Difficulty-centered composite: each result counts as its deviation from that benchmark’s observed average, so being measured on a hard benchmark doesn’t hurt and a generously-scored one doesn’t inflate. Deviations are weighted over the full benchmark set — a missing benchmark counts at its average, so sparse coverage dilutes toward the mean — and anchored to the dataset average. The basis (e.g. “3/6”) shows coverage only, not the denominator. Self-reported results count at 75% of their deviation. Independent benchmarks weigh more than vendor-run ones:

  • SWE-bench Verified ×1 mixed
  • GSO ×1 independent
  • Terminal-Bench 2.0 ×1.5 independent
  • DeepSWE ×1.5 independent
  • AA Coding Index ×1.5 independent
  • CursorBench ×0.5 vendor-self-reported

Value index

coding score ÷ log₁₀(effective cost), where effective cost is the cheapest tier whose estimated monthly quota covers your usage profile. Costs are floored at $10 so near-free API pricing can’t dominate the index. API-only cost assumes 80% input / 20% output tokens.

  • Light 5M tokens/mo
  • Daily 30M tokens/mo
  • Heavy 150M tokens/mo

Vendors express quotas in incompatible units (prompts per 5h, weekly hours, credits) — each tier carries its conversion assumption verbatim in the expanded row, and each plan a quota-confidence label (high/medium/low) for how solid the vendor’s published numbers are. The label never changes a score. Treat estimates as directional, not exact.

Reliability

70% curated editorial judgment per provider (incident/degradation history, quota pain, limit transparency — rationale in the expanded row) + 30% measured behavior of the shown model, the mean of three independent Artificial Analysis evals: non-hallucination rate (AA-Omniscience — admitting ignorance instead of confabulating), IFBench (instruction following) and τ²-Bench (agentic tool-calling dependability).

Every price, quota and benchmark entry links its source and carries a verification date. Data last verified Jun 9, 2026. Prices in USD as quoted by vendors; quarterly/annual plans converted to effective monthly.

© 2026 AICODA Legal notice Privacy policy

All scores are our evaluation and may change.