# 🔍 PPT App Testing: Cost Anomaly Across Model Multipliers (Noticed Along the Way)

**URL:** <https://forum.anna.partners/t/ppt-app-testing-cost-anomaly-across-model-multipliers-noticed-along-the-way/200>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [July 30, 2026, 10:40am UTC](https://forum.anna.partners/t/ppt-app-testing-cost-anomaly-across-model-multipliers-noticed-along-the-way/200 "2026-07-30T10:40:16Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dora](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex033/user_avatar/forum.anna.partners/dora/32/192_2.png) [@dora](https://forum.anna.partners/u/dora)\
**Post date:** [July 30, 2026, 10:40am UTC](https://forum.anna.partners/t/ppt-app-testing-cost-anomaly-across-model-multipliers-noticed-along-the-way/200/1 "2026-07-30T10:40:16Z")

</div>

**🔍 PPT App Testing: Cost Anomaly Across Model Multipliers (Noticed Along the Way)**

While testing the PPT App today (single-page PPT generation), noticed some inconsistencies between token cost and the model multiplier numbers — flagging it here.

These weren’t dedicated cost-measurement tests — just observations picked up during regular PPT testing. But since each run used the **same prompt and same variables** (search on, same template choice or none), with only the model/multiplier changed, the data still seems worth sharing.

**Gemini ×3**

- **1-1** : no template — 221 tokens / 10min
- **1-2** : no template — 255.28 tokens / 7min

**Gemini ×6**

- **2-1** : no template — 299 tokens / 10min
- **2-2** : template — 602 tokens / 14min
- **2-2** : template — 602 tokens / 14min
- **2-5** : youming template — 523.455 tokens / 20min18s

**Gemini ×18**

- **3** : no template — 2717.623 tokens / 13min

**GPT ×4**

- **4-1** : template — 177.629 tokens / 9min

**Kimi ×6.78**

- **5** : no template — 585.105 tokens / 20min29s

**Qwen ×3.31**

- **6** : no template — 1108.927 tokens / 15min35s

**GPT ×20**

- **7** : no template — 378 tokens / 6min

**GPT ×28**

- **8** : no template — 409.358 tokens / 10min

**Claude ×30**

- **9** : no template — 2235.757 tokens — cost is roughly in the same range as Gemini ×18 (2717.623), despite the multiplier being nearly double

**⚠ The issue**

Not a dedicated cost test, but since scenario (single-page PPT), prompt, and variables were all consistent — only the model/multiplier changed — cost should scale somewhat predictably with the multiplier. It doesn’t:

- Gemini 6→18 (3x multiplier increase) → actual cost jumped ~5–9x (vs. normal ×6 baseline of ~300–600 tokens)
- Claude ×30 costs about the same as Gemini ×18, despite the multiplier being nearly double

Just something noticed along the way, not a rigorous cost comparison experiment — but the numbers diverge enough that it’s worth the team taking a look at whether there’s a billing logic issue.