harrytyp/ai-coding-plan-prices

AI coding plan prices (tokens and requests per dollar)

What the flat rate AI coding subscriptions cost, and what you actually get for the money: published quotas, per model spending caps, included models, and the resulting tokens and requests per dollar paid. This is the dataset behind vibeplan.cc.

Snapshot of this revision: 2026-10-06 10:22 UTC, 80 plans from 26 providers, 53 of them directly comparable, built from 30 official sources. Disclosure split: 51 disclosed, 21 reference, 4 partial, 2 reported, 1 undisclosed, 1 measured.

Files

• —plans.jsonl - one plan per line, the fields described below (this is the file to load).
• —latest.json - the complete dataset exactly as the website loads it, including the comparison tables, the AI score snapshot, the FX rates and the changelog.

Columns in plans.jsonl

• —id, name, provider - plan identity.
• —price - effective monthly price in US dollars, fees included, plus the billing period.
• —meter, quotas, windowCaps - the plan's own published limits (messages, tokens, requests, hours) and how they reset.
• —modelRows, modelStats - per model rates and the per model spending caps a plan applies.
• —disclosure - how well the plan documents its limits: disclosed, partial, reported, reference (kept for context, not comparable) or undisclosed.
• —dataTier - A/B/M/C/D quality tier of the source situation behind that plan.
• —sourceIds, verifiedAt - where each figure came from and when it was last checked.
• —notes, priceNote - the plain language caveats that belong to that row.

Rates are normalised to tokens per US dollar and requests per US dollar of the price actually paid, at a target comparison price of 1 USD.

Loading

from datasets import load_dataset
ds = load_dataset("harrytyp/ai-coding-plan-prices", split="train")
ds[0]

How it is built

Rebuilt every day from around 30 official sources (provider pricing pages, docs, plan pages) by the pipeline in the source repository. The build never guesses a number: where a provider does not publish a quota, the field stays empty and the plan is marked as not comparable instead of being estimated. Prices include card and processing fees, so the figure is what you actually pay.

Limits, stated plainly

• —Only plans that publish a hard recurring limit are comparable, 53 of 80 at this snapshot. Providers with vague or unpublished caps stay out of the rankings on purpose.
• —reference rows are documented plans that cannot be ranked (for example because nothing is published about the included amount).
• —API prices per token are a different question and are not part of this dataset.
• —Promotional pricing exists (first month discounts, annual billing). The dataset keeps the effective monthly price and the billing period rather than hiding it in a single number.

License and citation

MIT, same as the site. Numbers change daily, so cite with a link to https://vibeplan.cc/ rather than copying figures. Corrections and source suggestions: issues.