The seat price is only the first layer
Team-plan prices often look directly comparable even when they buy different things. One price may cover a dedicated AI workspace, another an entire office suite, and another only an add-on that requires a qualifying base licence. Usage can also be uniform, mixed by seat type or extended through a separate credit budget.
Start with the decision in front of you. If the team is choosing between vendors, compare the same five-person scenario across seat floor, usage path, administration and billing exit. If the team has already chosen ChatGPT Business, separate its fixed seats from included usage and optional credits instead of pretending the seat invoice predicts a heavy month.
Choose the matching route
Use the five-person plan comparison to compare unlike pricing models without declaring a winner from four marketing numbers. It shows why office-suite value, qualifying licences and a single heavy user can change the shortlist.
Use the ChatGPT Business credits budget when the product decision is already narrower. That route turns five seats into a fixed subscription floor, a seven-day usage record and an explicit decision about whether extra credits belong in the operating budget.
Both routes end with a small real-work evaluation. Pricing pages can define the commitment and documented limits; they cannot prove which product completes the team's work best.
If the plan choice is settled but a Codex setup still names GPT-5.4, use the five-setting retirement audit. It separates the affected ChatGPT sign-in route from API-key use and keeps the model migration distinct from the price comparison.
