Users question cost-benefit versus running Claude models with custom harness
3 Nov 2 12:38 PM · 6d ago · 3 comments · 1 source · development 3 of 12
Multiple commenters challenged whether Momentic justifies its pricing against simpler alternatives like running Claude Opus 5.5 directly with a custom Playwright harness using existing model subscriptions.
Wei-Wei Momentic co-founderJeff Momentic co-founderHenry Momentic engineerGabe (MGabrielDenton) Momentic engineer
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 4 voices · verbatim
-
> Mo is a custom agent harness for catching bugs that builds on the past 3 years of Momentic and millions of test traces from complex, real-world applications. Mo is built for recall: it finds the most real bugs, though Codex is a bit more precise at 86% vs 84%. The tradeoff is cost: Mo costs $2.67 per bug vs $0.80 for Codex, less than Claude Code…
-
The last 3 years saw tons of "custom agent harnesses" come up, only for them to be superseded by the next generation of frontier models, which could do the same (and more) in their generic harness. So, what will you sell when Opus 6.0 swallows Mo's edge in 5 months from now? And probably cheaper, when using a Claude subscription instead of paying…
-
Hey I'm Gabe (one of the engineers @Momentic). In general Mo's advantage is in the total amount of bugs found. In comparison to claude code we find roughly 5x as many bugs at 35% less per bug (for the 60 min session).
-
Why is this better than running Opus 5.5 directly against my app with a custom Playwright-based harness for in my own subscription?
All 12 developments of Momentic launches AI QA agent that autonomously tests apps… →
Hacker NewsNewswiresMastodon