Infinite context. Never compact. Local-first AI coding agent. Use your existing Grok / OpenAI subscription or BYOK. Free.
Joined July 2026
- Tweets2.1K
- Following994
- Followers213
- Likes1.9K
WHY IS OUR AI BILL BIGGER THAN PAYROLL?
Same model. Windows desktop. Your keys.
mannacode.ai
š¤ Made with AI
Bro, that chart is SO misleading.... normalize the axis to 0 and you're really splitting hairs. Stop twisting the data to tell a story that is really an embellishment.
Full debrief ā method, charts, every run, the caveats: mannacode.ai/benchmark?utm_sā¦
Manna Code is a local-first AI coding agent: BYOK, smart frontier/local routing, threads that never compact. mannacode.ai
ALT Screenshot of the benchmark debrief page at mannacode.ai/benchmark.
It's not a lucky run. Manna Code's ten runs: $0.29ā$0.70. Claude Code's: $0.57ā$1.02. Manna Code's most expensive run still cost less than 9 of Claude Code's 10. The gap is structural ā fewer tokens moved per turn ā not variance.
ALT Strip plot of all 20 run costs. Manna Code's ten runs span $0.29ā$0.70 (avg $0.43); Claude Code's span $0.57ā$1.02 (avg $0.88). The distributions barely overlap.
Where the money goes: tokens.
439K tokens/run (Claude Code) vs 149K (Manna Code) ā 2.9Ć fewer.
Nearly the whole gap is cached context re-read every turn: ~368K vs ~101K per run. You're paying your agent to re-read the repo. Every turn.
ALT Segmented bars: average tokens per run. Manna Code 149K vs Claude Code 439K. Most of the gap is context re-read every turn: ~101K vs ~368K.
We ran the identical code-audit task 10Ć each through Claude Code and Manna Code. Same model (Opus 4.8), same effort, same prompt, fresh session per run.
Claude Code: $0.88/run
Manna Code: $0.43/run
Both scored 11/11. Same answers ā half the bill.
ALT Bar chart: average cost per run on the identical code audit. Manna Code $0.43, Claude Code $0.88 ā 2.06Ć cheaper, same 11/11 result. Opus 4.8, n=10 each.