Transparent agent economics
Compare the whole agent cost, not just tokens.
Model cash, failure recovery, developer time, capacity, and policy uncertainty across five deployment paths. Every number below is your scenario input.
Workload model
Describe one repeatable task
Comparison lanes
Make unlike billing models comparable
Monthly TCO
Cash plus estimated labor
Formula audit
See every multiplier
Sensitivity
Low, base, and high utilization
Capacity planner
Will the lane keep up?
Decision weights
What matters besides price?
Operational checks
Turn unknowns into explicit work
Synthetic code-review example
Four model calls, eight tool steps, one successful review
This worked scenario demonstrates the calculation only. It does not reproduce or validate any provider claim from the source post.
Caveated recommendation
Best fit for this scenario
A scenario cost comparison needs explicit workload and labor assumptions
Read the explanation
The saved comparison page starts with forty runs per day and twenty two billing days, giving eight hundred eighty planned runs per month. At one pixel per ten runs the monthly bar measures eighty eight. Its displayed workload inputs also include four model calls and eight tool calls per run, yielding three thousand five hundred twenty model-call slots and seven thousand forty tool-call slots before any retries. At one pixel per fifty call slots those bars measure seventy point four and one hundred forty point eight. These are products of visible scenario inputs, not actual execution counts, current provider limits or validated billing. A retry-rate field must be interpreted through its real implementation before estimating completed runs. The visible recovery inputs assign nine developer minutes per failed run and ninety currency units per hour. Nine divided by sixty times ninety gives thirteen point five assigned labor units per failure. Ten such failures would contribute one hundred thirty five, and one hundred would contribute one thousand three hundred fifty. At one pixel per ten currency units those comparison bars measure thirteen point five and one hundred thirty five. These examples demonstrate dimensional arithmetic rather than the missing calculator implementation or actual labor records. Failure probability, retries, caching, provider prices and automation terms all remain separate assumptions; no quoted platform price or recommended purchase is established here. The capacity inputs show six concurrent runs and six minutes per run. Under the simplifying assumption of continuously occupied independent slots, six divided by six gives one completed run per minute, or sixty per hour. At two pixels per completion count, the per-minute and per-hour bars measure two and one hundred twenty. Queue delay, actual request admission and failure recovery can reduce that ideal rate. The saved HTML references application code and styles that are absent locally, leaving lane tables and calculated output uninitialized. Native numeric inputs can still change, but export and print buttons lack their application handlers. This local video describes visible assumptions without claiming a computed total cost, operational capacity benchmark or working public calculator.