# Bug/Help: Other Models % hits 100% while usage-export at published API rates only reconstructs ~65% — how to reconcile the meter?

**URL:** <https://forum.cursor.com/t/bug-help-other-models-hits-100-while-usage-export-at-published-api-rates-only-reconstructs-65-how-to-reconcile-the-meter/172012>\
**Category:** Help\
**Created:** [September 17, 2026, 11:18am UTC](https://forum.cursor.com/t/bug-help-other-models-hits-100-while-usage-export-at-published-api-rates-only-reconstructs-65-how-to-reconcile-the-meter/172012 "2026-09-17T11:18:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 29

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![villatothesea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/cursor1/user_avatar/forum.cursor.com/villatothesea/32/121878_2.png) [@villatothesea](https://forum.cursor.com/u/villatothesea)\
**Post date:** [September 27, 2026, 1:23am UTC](https://forum.cursor.com/t/bug-help-other-models-hits-100-while-usage-export-at-published-api-rates-only-reconstructs-65-how-to-reconcile-the-meter/172012/29 "2026-09-27T01:23:11Z")

</div>

I’ve been on all three individual tiers over the past month and exported the usage events from each. I’d like to understand how the numbers are supposed to reconcile, because I can’t make them do so.

**What I exported**

I pulled the per-request usage export for each plan. Columns are `Input (w/o Cache Write)`, `Cache Read`, `Output Tokens`, `Total Tokens`. All three plans ran the same primary model (`cursor-grok-4.6-high`), Max Mode off throughout.

| Plan | Window | Active days | Requests | Total tokens | Output tokens |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Pro ($20) | Aug 30 – Sep 5 | 7 | 975 | 1,621,213,746 | 8,620,621 |
| Pro+ ($60) | Sep 7 – Sep 19 | 13 | 7,921 | 2,967,238,402 | 16,398,198 |
| Ultra ($200) | Sep 21 – Sep 26 | 6 | 5,811 | 4,098,987,387 | 12,736,320 |

**Finding 1 — The token ratio is nowhere near 20x.**

Normalizing to per-active-day, since the windows aren’t the same length:

| Metric (per active day) | Pro | Pro+ | Ultra | Pro+/Pro | Ultra/Pro | Ultra/Pro+ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total tokens | 231.6M | 228.2M | 683.2M | 0.99x | **2.95x** | 2.99x |
| Output tokens | 1.23M | 1.26M | 2.12M | 1.02x | **1.72x** | 1.68x |
| Requests | 139 | 609 | 969 | 4.37x | 6.95x | 1.59x |
| Tokens per request | 1,662,783 | 374,604 | 705,384 | 0.23x | 0.42x | 1.88x |

Total tokens: Ultra is **2.95x** Pro over the same period. Output tokens — the part that’s actually new work rather than re-sent context — is only **1.72x**. I understand the “20x” figure refers to the included dollar allowance ($400 vs $20), not tokens, but that’s exactly the confusion: the number quoted on the pricing page compares an allowance to a price, and users read it as capacity.

**Finding 2 — Converting to a common rate doesn’t close the gap.**

I repriced the same raw token counts under two rate cards. First Cursor’s own published rates (Grok 4.6: $2 input / $0.50 cache read / $6 output per 1M), then xAI’s public Grok 4.6 API rates on the same three token columns, per day:

| Rate card | Pro | Pro+ | Ultra | Pro+/Pro | Ultra/Pro | Ultra/Pro+ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cursor published rates | $131.9 | $113.2 | $336.5 | 0.86x | **2.55x** | 2.97x |
| xAI public Grok 4.6 rates | $138.8 | $141.6 | $383.3 | 1.02x | **2.76x** | 2.71x |
| Implied ratio | 0.95 | 0.80 | 0.88 | | | |

Ultra comes out at **2.55x–2.76x** Pro under both rate cards. Three different lenses — raw tokens, Cursor’s rates, xAI’s rates — land in the same 2.5x–3.0x band and nowhere near 20x.

Worth noting: repricing under Cursor’s own number is actually _cheaper_ than xAI’s public rate (ratio 0.80–0.95). So I’m not claiming Cursor inflates unit prices. My question is about the ladder, not the price.

**Finding 3 — The included allowance isn’t a ceiling.**

Every plan burned well past its stated allowance over the period measured:

- Pro: $923 of usage against a $20 allowance
- Pro+ : $1,472 against $70
- Ultra: $2,019 against $400

So the “included” figure isn’t a hard cap — fine. But then what does it represent, if a $20 plan can consume 46x its allowance? And if sustained consumption well above allowance is normal, on what basis is “20x” a meaningful comparison?

**Finding 4 — Plan tier doesn’t govern task weight, only total.**

Filtering to the one model all three plans used heavily (`cursor-grok-4.6-high`):

| Plan | Requests | Total tokens | Tokens/request | Tokens per output token |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Pro | 839 | 1,477,978,937 | 1,761,596 | 188.7x |
| Pro+ | 780 | 2,188,407,381 | 2,805,650 | 203.1x |
| Ultra | 683 | 690,931,884 | 1,011,613 | 261.8x |

Nearly identical request counts, but Usage 3.3x apart. Pro+ averaged 2.8M tokens per request — heavier sessions than Ultra on the same model. The tier isn’t limiting how much context a request may carry; it’s limiting something else that I can’t identify from the export.

**Finding 5 — Request count is a poor proxy for usage.**

My own numbers: Ultra ran 969 requests/day vs Pro’s 139 (6.95x), yet consumed only 2.95x the tokens. A “request” here ranges from ~375K to ~1.7M tokens. If there’s a fair-use policy or a rate limiter operating on requests, it’s measuring a unit that varies 4.5x in cost.

**What I’m asking**

1. **How is a request billed?** Is there a defined unit — a request, a token, a “usage unit” — and is it documented anywhere? The export gives me four token columns and a `Cost` field that only ever says `Included`, so I can’t reconstruct the accounting.
2. **What is the actual capacity ratio between Pro, Pro+, and Ultra?** Not the allowance ratio — the capacity ratio. If I run identical workloads on all three, what multiplier should I expect before hitting a wall?
3. **Why does the “20x” figure compare Ultra’s allowance to Pro’s price?** $400/$20 = 20x, but $60 buys $70 and $200 buys $400, so the allowance-to-price ladder isn’t linear. Quoting 20x invites the reading that Ultra is 20x the product.
4. **What are the pool boundaries?** I can see Grok Bot usage appearing in my exports with no cost attributed. Which pools are separate, which are shared, and does on-demand billing begin at the allowance figure or at some other threshold?
5. **Is the export itself complete?** Should the `Cost` column show rates for included usage, so users can verify their own accounting?

I’m not accusing anyone of anything — I like the product and I’m paying for the top tier. But a $200 plan where I genuinely cannot determine what I’m buying relative to the $20 plan is a problem, and I don’t think I’m the only one who’s confused. If I’ve misread the docs or made an error in the analysis, I’d genuinely like to be corrected, and I’ll say so publicly.

Happy to share the raw exports or the analysis if that’s useful. Would a Cursor team member be able to clarify the intended accounting?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.cursor.com/t/bug-help-other-models-hits-100-while-usage-export-at-published-api-rates-only-reconstructs-65-how-to-reconcile-the-meter/172012)._