Why do you pay OpenAI $20 when LLM aggregators offer more for less?
Hey everyone,
On paper, third-party LLM aggregators (or "wrappers") seem like an obvious win for users. You get access to multiple top-tier models—like GPT-4, Claude 4.1, and Gemini 2.5 Pro—all under one subscription, often for the same $20/month as ChatGPT, or even less.
And yet, from what I've seen, most power users I know (myself included, until recently) stick to their native subscriptions. We pay OpenAI or Anthropic directly and don't make the switch.
I have a few theories why:
Fear of missing out on new features
Trust & Speed
Inertia - We're just used to the workflow
But I'm curious if I'm missing the bigger picture.
I'm trying to understand what would actually move the needle.
Is it a suite of powerful productivity features that native apps simply don't have (e.g., better organization, visualization tools, workflow automation)?
Is it a radically better, faster, or more customizable UX that makes the native apps feel clumsy?
Is it enterprise-grade security and privacy guarantees that are demonstrably better than the originals?
Or is it something else entirely?
Just genuinely curious to hear how this community sees the landscape. What's your take?
Cheers!
Replies
For me, it's peace of mind. I know OpenAI won't suddenly cut access or throttle usage. Aggregators might offer variety but reliability and direct updates keep me paying the original provider.
@philip_polk Super helpful, thanks Philip. Quick thought experiment: if a tool could offer a suite of productivity features that saved you, say, 5-10 hours of work a month—things the native apps will likely never build—would that be compelling enough to offset the 'peace of mind' risk? Or is that stability a non-negotiable foundation?