Single vs multi-agent: same task, 4 setups, 3x cost gap measured
latent_lurker8587 · reddit · 2026-10-28
The author ran the same Python expense-tracker build through 4 agent setups, graded by 38 hidden tests. Results: Codex (GPT 5.5) 38/38 in 6m38s at $1.32; Claude Code (Opus 5.5) 38/38 in 5m57s at $1.27; Paseo team (c-digs' published lead+worker prompt) 38/38 in 5m25s at $1.13; Atomic Agent Fusion mode (Opus 5.5 plans, local Qwen 3.8 27B builds) 36/38 — perfect after a one-line fix — in 3m11s at just $0.40. All four had zero merge conflicts. Notably, the Paseo lead judged the job too small and built everything itself without spawning workers — knowing when not to split is a feature. Takeaway: orchestration pays off not by speeding small jobs but by reserving expensive models for thinking while cheap/local models do the bulk, with oversight when pieces fail. Round 2 will use a task big enough that splitting is obvious.
Related event: Benchmark test: single-agent vs multi-agent setups show 3x cost gap(2 posts)→
More from coding & agent
- N-queens solved entirely in Python type annotations with ty, each solution a tuple — charliermarsh · 2026-10-28
- Adding Push to MCP: A New Attack Surface and a Design Sketch — braelyn_ai · 2026-10-28
- MCP gap: services can't push to agents, dev argues spec needs server-initiated events — braelyn_ai · 2026-10-28
- Swarms Cloud revamps Models page aggregating 2,000+ LLMs with pricing — KyeGomezB · 2026-10-28
- A new open source model: closed to pull requests, open to remix — kieranklaassen · 2026-10-28
- CC Switch tutorial: rotating multiple Claude official subscriptions and ban-risk notes — dotey · 2026-10-28