Devin Gets 30–40% Cheaper as Fusion Tops FrontierCode 1.1 With a 68.8 Score

The Devin team has announced price cuts: 30–40% in Fusion and Normal modes, 15–20% in Ultra, and up to 70% in Devin Review. The savings come from new models, including the team's own SWE-2, and from a rework of the agent harness. Devin Fusion took first place on FrontierCode 1.1 Extended with a score of 68.8 at an average cost of $0.60 per task. Opus 5.5 (high) scored 65.2 at $0.90. • Fusion pairs a strong lead model with a cheaper helper. • Batched tool calls cut the number of turns. • Prompt caching reduces the amount of computation done from scratch.

AI-processed from Windsurf Blog; edited by Hamidun News
Devin Gets 30–40% Cheaper as Fusion Tops FrontierCode 1.1 With a 68.8 Score
Source: Windsurf Blog. Collage: Hamidun News.
Listen to article
Article Fact Sheet & Key Figures
ParameterDetails
Primary sourceWindsurf Blog ↗
Editor-in-Chief
Key metric #1Fusion pairs a strong lead model with a cheaper helper.
Key metric #2Batched tool calls cut the number of turns.
Key metric #3Prompt caching reduces the amount of computation done from scratch.

Devin has become noticeably cheaper. According to the developers, prices fell by 30–40% in Fusion and Normal modes, by 15–20% in Ultra, and by up to 70% in Devin Review. The team claims intelligence has been preserved or improved in every mode. Devin Fusion took first place on FrontierCode 1.1 Extended with a score of 68.8 at an average cost of $0.60 per task.

A cheaper agent and a stronger agent usually require a trade-off. Here, the authors claim to have achieved both at once. The number in the table looks convincing, but the measurements were published by the vendor itself, and the comparison includes its own SWE-2 model. Test it on your own tasks.

Models: matching the model to the task

Models account for two-thirds of the savings, and the engineering around them delivers the rest. Devin is not tied to a single provider and picks a model for each stage of work. According to the team:

  • Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol offer stronger intelligence at a good price-to-quality ratio.
  • GPT-6 Astra handles computer use better than the others.
  • GPT-6 Luna noticeably cuts the cost of auxiliary tasks.
  • SWE-2 is the team's own model.

Fusion is built on a pair: a capable lead model and a cheaper helper. Devin Review selects models separately for diff analysis, bug hunting, and change categorization. Normal and Ultra choose them for planning, testing, debugging, and migrations.

Benchmark: score versus price

FrontierCode 1.1 Extended, average cost per task and score:

  • Devin Fusion: 68.8 points, $0.60.
  • Opus 5.5 (high): 65.2, $0.90.
  • Fable 5.1 (medium): 63.6, $2.68.
  • GPT-6 Astra (high): 63.1, $2.62.
  • SWE-2 (high): 60.1, $0.64.
  • GPT-6 Sol (high): 59.6, $0.87.

Fusion beats Opus 5.5 by 3.6 points and costs a third less. Against Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra, it is more than four times cheaper. Also worth noting: SWE-2 on its own costs barely more than Fusion but trails it by 8.7 points. The pairing of models is what delivers the quality gain.

Harness: fewer turns, more cache

The second source of savings is the harness, the layer that controls the agent loop. The new models are better at planning several actions at once. Previously, formatting, linting, and tests ran as three separate turns. Now the model can request all three in a single call and reason about the results together. In the team's illustrative example, that means 2 turns instead of 4 and 49% fewer tokens sent. Independent calls now run in parallel, and planned sequences run back to back without returning to the model.

The second part involves prompt caching. LLMs are stateless, so every agent request carries the full history: instructions, code, and past actions. If the beginning of a request matches the previous one, the provider reuses the computation for the shared prefix. In a demo session of five turns, the cache cuts the tokens processed from scratch to 27K instead of 93K, which is 71% fewer. These are also schematic, rounded figures, not a measurement on real tasks.

The approach has limitations. The shared prefix must stay unchanged, the cache is short-lived, and it is tied to a specific model and provider. That means the harness has to be designed carefully. On the other hand, it benefits from cheaper cache reads: for Opus 5.5 they cost 60% less than for Opus 5, and GPT-6 Sol and Luna cost half as much as their predecessors in the 5.6 line. In long sessions with a large history, these discounts add up.

What teams should do

If you already pay for Devin, it makes sense to recalculate your budget: the same tasks now cost less, especially in Review. If automated pull request review was too expensive, a discount of up to 70% changes the math. Run a couple of typical tasks on your own repository in Normal and Fusion, compare the total cost and the share of accepted changes, and only then switch the default mode.

For those building their own agents, the lesson is more practical. Keep a stable request prefix so the cache works. Let the model batch commands into a single call. Assign cheap models to auxiliary steps. The update is already available at devin.ai.

Story

Key Questions Answered

What are the key details on Models: matching the model to the task?

Models account for two-thirds of the savings, and the engineering around them delivers the rest. Devin is not tied to a single provider and picks a model for each stage of work. According to the team: Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol offer stronger intelligence at a good price-to-quality ratio. GPT-6 Astra handles computer use better than the others. GPT-6 Luna noticeably cuts the cost of auxiliary tasks. SWE-2 is the team's own model. Fusion is built on a pair: a capable lead model and a cheaper helper. Devin Review selects models separately for diff analysis, bug hunting, and chang

What are the key details on Benchmark: score versus price?

FrontierCode 1.1 Extended, average cost per task and score: Devin Fusion: 68.8 points, $0.60. Opus 5.5 (high): 65.2, $0.90. Fable 5.1 (medium): 63.6, $2.68. GPT-6 Astra (high): 63.1, $2.62. SWE-2 (high): 60.1, $0.64. GPT-6 Sol (high): 59.6, $0.87. Fusion beats Opus 5.5 by 3.6 points and costs a third less. Against Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra, it is more than four times cheaper. Also worth noting: SWE-2 on its own costs barely more than Fusion but trails it by 8.7 points. The pairing of models is what delivers the quality gain.

What are the key details on Harness: fewer turns, more cache?

The second source of savings is the harness, the layer that controls the agent loop. The new models are better at planning several actions at once. Previously, formatting, linting, and tests ran as three separate turns. Now the model can request all three in a single call and reason about the results together. In the team's illustrative example, that means 2 turns instead of 4 and 49% fewer tokens sent. Independent calls now run in parallel, and planned sequences run back to back without returning to the model. The second part involves prompt caching. LLMs are stateless, so

ZK
Zhemal Khamidun — CPO at Alpina Digital, product manager of AlpinaGPT. Building AI products since 2019. Hamidun News is a pet project that grew into a production aggregator with 6,000+ readers.
✦ Hands-On AI Engineering · Hamidun Academy

Build & Ship Production AI Agents Without Boilerplate Code

Start your free 72-hour trial at Hamidun Academy (academy.hamidun.com) — interactive lessons on Claude Code & Cursor, live Tech Radar, and production agent templates.

Start 72h Free Trial →Vibe-Coding Intensive
What do you think?
Loading comments…