
Jev vs Laya: the same model deciding, at ten times the speed
Jev vs Laya. Same board, same food, same decisions. One ate 47. The other ate 4.
OpenOne CSV. Two AI agents. Build the client dashboard.
One CSV from a real influencer seeding campaign: 21 creators across Singapore and Malaysia, each sent product and promised a Story or a Post. Creator names and handles are replaced with ids; the figures are real. I gave two AI agents one brief: turn this into a dashboard I could send the client, in one HTML file, sized for a 1080 x 780 window, that comes alive on its own.
Claude Fable 5.1 ran in Claude Code, GPT-6 Astra in Codex CLI. One attempt each, no retries, no coaching, a fresh empty folder per run with the same CSV in it.
Both produced a working dashboard, and they look nothing alike. Fable built a dark operations board with a flow of promised against delivered, a follower drift chart and a spotlight that cycles through all 21 creators. Astra built a light, branded report with the full creator table, and it refused to call follower counts 'reach', saying so in a footnote. On this data that was the better call.
Fable took 35 turns and 12 minutes and billed $5.90. The reel shows $4.91, from my older script that under-counted Claude runs. Astra answered in one pass in 3m22 for $0.73. They ran in different tools, so part of that gap is the tool and the number of turns, not the model.
| Entrant | Tool | Time | Cost | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Code | 12m01 | $5.90 (reel: $4.91) | Dark ops board, cycles all 21 creators |
| GPT-6 Astra | Codex CLI | 3m22 | $0.73 | Light report, would not call followers reach |
The reels are the test bench. The real work is picking the one job in your business worth handing to AI, building it properly, and keeping it running. That’s what I do as your AI partner.

Jev vs Laya. Same board, same food, same decisions. One ate 47. The other ate 4.
Open
10,000 Skittles, sorted by colour one at a time.
Open
Four Claudes. One airport.
Open