Habr Review: 6 Services Offer Free Access to GPT-6 and Claude, With $10–25 in Credits

Six services, millions of free tokens a day, and $10–25 in starter API credits. That is the pitch of a new review on Habr. The author claims to have tested platforms with access to GPT-6, Claude, and other models: which models are actually available, how fast they respond, and where users hit limits. The announcement names none of the services and includes no table of measurements, so what follows covers only what is claimed, and how to verify such promises yourself.

What the review claims

The announcement suggests the services fall into three types: those with a daily token quota, those with one-time API credits, and those with temporary access. These are three different economic models, and they cannot be compared directly.

• Number of platforms: 6
• Daily quota: "millions of tokens" on some services
• Starter API credits: $10–25
• Temporary access: the announcement does not state the duration
• What the author checked: model availability, response speed, limits
• Models mentioned: GPT-6, Claude, and "others"

The publicly available part of the article contains no measurements. Response speed, specific limits, and the final ranking appear only in the full version on Habr.

How to read these numbers

"Millions of tokens a day" means nothing until you know which model the quota applies to. A million tokens on a lightweight model covers a large volume of tasks. A flagship model with the same quota may cap requests per minute, context length, or access to a heavy reasoning mode. Another catch: input and output tokens are often billed separately, and output tokens usually cost more.

Credits of $10–25 also depend on the model's price. On an expensive model, that buys a modest amount of work; on a cheap one, it can cover thousands of requests. Promotional credits also typically expire after a set period.

Model authenticity is a separate question. If a service calls a model "GPT-6" or "Claude," that does not mean your request actually goes there. Some aggregators are honest intermediaries; others swap in a cheaper model. A model's self-identification in a chat is unreliable. A better check is to compare the model-name field in the API response, and to run the same set of benchmark tasks against the official endpoint and compare results.

The price of free

Free access is almost always paid for in some other way. Prompts on such platforms may be stored and used for training or analytics. Limits change without warning, and sign-up bonuses disappear once a service has built its audience. Keys and accounts with little-known intermediaries are a security risk in their own right.

What to do in practice

First, open the original article and check the date of the measurements: conditions in this niche go stale within weeks. Then run your own working task on each service, not a demo prompt, and time the responses. If a platform offers an API, create a separate key, set a spending limit, and do not send production code, personal data, or corporate documents in requests. Free quotas are fine for prototypes and experiments. Production needs a contract with clear terms on data handling and availability.