We have a new LLM in Copilot winner

image

A while back I compared all the different LLM’s (i.e. GPT, Claude) in various Copilot services (i.e. Chat, Cowork) here:

https://blog.ciaops.com/2026/08/17/comparing-llms-in-copilot-services-round-7-final/

The ultimate winner was:

Opus 5 (Cowork)

which cost US$22 to complete the work.

Microsoft has just announced that Fable 5.1 is available in Cowork so I took it for a spin through the same prompt I used in the recent testing. The results are here (as judged by Grok):

https://github.com/directorcia/general/blob/master/Copilot/Comparisons/20260902-Cowork-Fable51-Grok-eval.md

and the new winner is now:

Fable 5.1 (Cowork)

you can see the result for yourself here:

https://github.com/directorcia/general/blob/master/Copilot/Comparisons/20260816/20260902-Cowork-Fable-51.docx

along with all the others outputs:

https://github.com/directorcia/general/tree/master/Copilot/Comparisons/20260816

Here is an update on the costs in Cowork for each model:

Fable 5.1 = 3,453 credits

Fable 5 (Preview) = 3,387 credits [Model no longer shown]
Fable 5 (Copilot)(Preview) = 3,373.8 credits [Model no longer shown]

GPT 5.6 Sol = 2,800.50 credits
Sonnet 5 = 2,509.3 credits
Opus 4.8 = 2,487 credits [Model no longer shown]
Opus 5 = 2,240 credits

GPT 5.5 = 1,200 credits
GPT 5.6 Terra = 260 credits

In summary then, the new best model, Fable 5.1, produces the best results from my standard prompt and is also the most expensive to use using that prompt.

The comparison report for all document paramteres has been updated here:

https://github.com/directorcia/general/blob/master/Copilot/Comparisons/20260816-File-paramters.md

The next updated model that we expect to see will probably be GPT 6.0 which is expected in the October timeframe if not sooner. As soon as it becomes available I’ll test it and update this information.

The Game You Are Actually Playing

image

I see a lot of MSP owners get into trouble at the point where the business starts to feel slow.

The pipeline is not moving the way it used to. The team meeting feels a bit flat. The same service issues keep coming around again. Nothing is broken enough to panic, but nothing is improving enough to create energy either.

That is a dangerous place to sit, because a quiet business rarely stays quiet for long.

Borrowing from the wrong playbook

When progress gets hard, the temptation is to look sideways. You see another MSP posting about a new offer, a new pricing model, a new automation stack, or a new AI service, and the instinct is to copy it.

I understand why. Doing something feels better than sitting with the problem. A fresh tactic gives you the sense that movement has returned.

The issue is that another provider may not be playing the same game as you.

A fifty-person MSP with dedicated account managers, mature project delivery, and a bench of engineers can make moves that will punish a ten-person business still trying to standardise its support desk. A one-person consultant can make promises that a larger team cannot deliver consistently. A cybersecurity-focused provider can price and position differently from a generalist MSP still carrying legacy client expectations.

The tactic may be sound. It just may not belong at your stage.

Progress needs context

This is where I think Microsoft 365 Copilot becomes useful, not as some magic answer, but as a way to get clearer about the current state of the business.

Before chasing the next idea, I would rather see an MSP owner ask Copilot in Teams to summarise recurring themes from recent leadership meetings, or use Copilot in Outlook to pull together the common patterns in customer escalations. If the team keeps discussing noisy clients, delayed projects, margin pressure, or weak documentation, that is a signal.

Then take that signal into Excel. Look at ticket trends, project slippage, licence margin, and client profitability. The goal is not to produce a beautiful report. The goal is to work out what level of the game you are really in.

Are you trying to win new business when delivery is already stretched? Are you selling AI readiness while your own SharePoint permissions are messy? Are you chasing strategic advisory revenue while your QBR process is still a slide deck built the night before?

That is not failure. That is feedback.

The next move should fit the level

Good strategy is not about copying the smartest-looking move in the market. It is about choosing the move your organisation can actually absorb.

For one MSP, that might mean tightening onboarding before launching a new managed Copilot service. For another, it might mean cleaning up agreement profitability before hiring another technical resource. For another, it might mean using Planner and Teams to create a simple weekly operating rhythm, so the leadership group can see what is stuck before it becomes expensive.

None of that sounds glamorous. That is partly the point.

A business usually regains energy when it can see progress again. Not noise. Not theatre. Real progress. A decision made. A blocker removed. A client segment clarified. A service standard improved.

The MSPs I see do well are not always the ones with the cleverest tactic. They are the ones with enough discipline to ask, “What game are we actually playing right now?” and enough honesty to answer it.

That is where momentum comes back.

Not from copying someone else’s move, but from making the next right move for your own business.

Standards Are Not Gatekeeping. They Are Protection.

image

I have sat in plenty of rooms where someone suggests lowering the bar to get more people involved. Make the rules softer. Reduce the expectations. Stop being so particular about process, documentation, security, handover, client communication, whatever the current friction point happens to be.

It always sounds reasonable at first.

But there is a pattern I have seen too many times to ignore: when a room has no clear standards, it does not attract the best people. It attracts the people who prefer ambiguity because ambiguity lets them avoid accountability.

That is a hard lesson for many MSPs to learn.

The bar tells people what matters

Standards are not about making life difficult. They are about making expectations visible.

If your team has a standard for documenting client environments in SharePoint, then everyone knows where the source of truth lives. If meeting notes and actions are captured in Teams or Loop, people know what was agreed and who owns it. If Copilot is being used to summarise client discussions, draft follow-up emails in Outlook, or prepare service review notes in Word, there should be a clear expectation about what information is appropriate to include and what must stay out.

Without that, everyone invents their own version of good enough.

That is when things drift.

One person writes detailed notes. Another leaves three vague lines in a ticket. One engineer checks conditional access changes against a peer review process. Another makes the change directly because “the client needed it quickly.” One account manager records agreed actions. Another relies on memory and an inbox search three weeks later.

The issue is not that people are bad. The issue is that the organisation has allowed different definitions of acceptable work to exist at the same time.

That never scales.

Lowering standards rarely solves the real problem

When standards feel hard to meet, the answer is not always to lower them. Sometimes the answer is to make them easier to follow.

That is where Microsoft 365 and Copilot can help, but only if the business already knows what good looks like.

For example, if your MSP expects every client meeting to end with clear actions, use Copilot in Teams to help summarise the discussion, then review and clean it up before sending it from Outlook. If your team struggles to keep project notes consistent, create a simple Word or Loop template that defines the structure. If client documentation is scattered, fix the SharePoint libraries and permissions before telling people to “just ask Copilot.”

Copilot does not remove the need for standards. It exposes where they are missing.

If your process is messy, Copilot will help you move faster through the mess. If your permissions are sloppy, Copilot will show people more of what they already had access to. If your team has never agreed what a good client handover looks like, Copilot will not magically create that discipline for you.

AI makes good standards more valuable, not less.

A serious business needs serious expectations

I am not talking about perfection. No MSP runs perfectly. Every team has busy days, awkward clients, rushed escalations, incomplete tickets, and moments where someone has to make a judgement call.

But there is a difference between flexibility and having no standard at all.

A good standard says, “This is how we do things here.” It gives strong people confidence because they know the work will not be undermined by shortcuts. It gives newer people a path to improve. It gives leaders something fair to manage against.

Most importantly, it protects the business from becoming a place where the lowest acceptable behaviour becomes normal.

If you want a better team, better clients, and better outcomes from tools like Copilot, start by being clear about the room you are building.

The people worth having will not be scared away by standards.

They will be attracted by them.

Stop Asking People To Buy Before They Care

image

A lot of businesses get marketing backwards.

They start with the offer. The demo. The booking link. The licence. The proposal. The “contact us” button sitting proudly at the bottom of a page that almost nobody has any reason to trust yet.

I see this in the MSP world all the time. An MSP wants more clients, so the instinct is to push harder. More ads. More campaigns. More landing pages.

The problem is not always visibility. Sometimes the market has not been given enough reasons to remember you.

Familiarity Comes Before The Sale

People rarely buy serious services from strangers. They buy from names they have heard before, ideas they have seen before, and people who have already helped them think more clearly.

That does not mean giving everything away. It means giving enough useful thinking away that the right people start associating your name with practical answers.

For an MSP, that might be a short post explaining why unmanaged devices are still a risk. It might be a simple onboarding checklist. It might be a plain-English explanation of Microsoft 365 backup, conditional access, or why Copilot needs clean information architecture before it becomes genuinely useful.

The point is not to sound clever. The point is to be useful before anyone is ready to buy.

If a business owner has seen your guidance in LinkedIn posts, Teams community discussions, newsletters, and client-facing articles, you are no longer just another supplier. You become part of how they understand the problem.

That matters.

Your Best Ideas Should Not Be Locked Away

Some MSPs worry that sharing too much will remove the need for the client to engage them.

I think the opposite is usually true.

A client who reads your explanation of a security issue and realises there are five more things they had not considered is not less likely to need help. They are more likely to respect the work. Good content does not replace expertise. It reveals the depth of it.

This is where Microsoft 365 gives MSPs a practical advantage. You can build a simple content rhythm inside the tools you already use. Capture repeated client questions in a Teams channel. Use Copilot in Word to turn rough notes from a technical conversation into a first draft. Store approved client education pieces in SharePoint so the team can reuse and improve them. Ask Copilot in Outlook to help shape a reply when a prospect asks, “Why do we need this?”

None of that replaces your judgement. It just reduces the friction between knowing something useful and getting it in front of the people who need to hear it.

Trust Is Built In Advance

The best time to earn attention is before the sales conversation starts.

By the time someone asks for a proposal, they have often already made a judgement. They have looked at what you say. They have noticed whether your advice is consistent. They have probably decided whether you understand their world.

That is why content is not decoration. It is part of the buying journey.

For MSPs, this matters because trust is the product before the product. Clients are handing over access to systems, identity, data, devices, security controls, and business continuity. They are not just buying labour. They are buying confidence.

You do not create that confidence by shouting louder at the last minute.

You create it by showing up with useful ideas before the prospect is ready to sign anything.

So my view is simple. If you want people to buy from you later, help them think better now.

Be remembered for useful work before you ask for commercial action.

That is not soft marketing. That is how trust compounds.

Copilot Has to Earn Its Seat

image

The more I speak with SMBs about Copilot, the more I think the price objection is often a cover story.

Yes, cost matters. It always does in a small business. A few extra licences can feel very real when margins are tight and every subscription renewal is already under scrutiny. But when I push beyond the first objection, the real issue is usually not, “This costs too much.”

It is more like, “I cannot yet see how this changes the way we work.”

That is a very different conversation.

A tool is easy to ignore. A better way of working is not.

If Copilot is positioned as another clever AI thing, most business owners will nod politely and move on. They have already seen plenty of clever AI things. Some staff are probably already using personal AI tools. Someone in the office has used it to write a birthday message, summarise a web page, or produce a passable first draft of something.

Interesting? Yes.

Worth paying for across the business? Not automatically.

The problem is that many Copilot conversations start with the product rather than the pain. They start with “Copilot can draft in Word” or “Copilot can summarise email in Outlook” or “Copilot can recap meetings in Teams”. Those are useful examples, but they are not business cases by themselves.

A business does not buy a licence because Word has a new button. It buys when the proposal that used to take half a day now has a solid first draft before lunch. It buys when the owner stops spending Sunday night catching up on email threads. It buys when Teams meeting notes no longer depend on the most organised person in the room remembering to write them up.

That is where the value starts to become visible.

Start with the job, not the SKU

The strongest Copilot deployments I see do not begin with “how many users should we licence?” They begin with one annoying, expensive, repeated business problem.

A sales team that loses time assembling proposals.

An operations manager who spends Friday afternoon turning messy updates into a weekly report.

A service desk where documentation is always the thing everyone agrees matters, but nobody has time to do properly.

A business owner who is constantly dragged into the same internal questions because the answer exists somewhere in SharePoint, but nobody can find it quickly.

Those are the entry points.

Once the business can see Copilot working inside that flow — Outlook for client follow-up, Teams for meeting recaps, Word for first-draft proposals, SharePoint as the source of truth — the conversation changes. It stops being about whether an AI licence is expensive. It becomes about whether the current way of working is more expensive.

And often it is.

Not always in a line item on the P&L. More often in delay, rework, missed follow-up, inconsistent communication, and staff doing low-value admin instead of useful work.

Capacity is the better conversation

For SMBs, I think the better framing is not productivity theatre. It is capacity.

Can the same team produce more proposals without hiring?

Can the owner get out of the inbox and back into decisions?

Can new staff get productive faster because Copilot can help them understand previous work, meeting context and internal documents?

Can service desk notes become consistent enough that the next technician does not have to rediscover the same answer?

That is the business value. Not magic. Not transformation by press release. Just less drag in the work that already exists.

This is why I do not like broad licence rollouts as the starting point. They create cost before confidence. A smaller, focused pilot around one measurable business problem is far more useful. Pick the problem. Pick the people closest to it. Use Copilot against real work. Measure what moved.

If the outcome is obvious, expansion becomes easy.

If it is not obvious, buying more licences will not fix it.

Copilot has to earn its seat in the business. When it does, the renewal discussion becomes much less about cost and much more about what the business can now do with the same people, the same hours, and far less friction.

The Real Copilot Conversation Starts After Someone Says “We Already Have AI”

image

I hear the same comment more often now.

“We’re already using AI.”

That usually means someone in the business has a tab open with one of the popular standalone AI tools. They ask it to rewrite emails, summarise articles, clean up rough notes, generate ideas, or explain a topic. It works. It feels useful. It costs less. So the natural question becomes: why would I pay more for Microsoft 365 Copilot?

That is the real conversation.

Not whether AI has value. Most people have already crossed that bridge. The challenge now is explaining why AI sitting beside the business is different from AI working inside the business.

Cheap tools are easy to understand

A standalone AI tool is simple to evaluate. You look at the licence cost. You look at what people can type into it. You compare the output against the price. That makes the decision feel clean.

But I think that comparison is often too narrow.

If someone spends half an hour preparing for a meeting by opening Outlook, searching Teams chats, scanning a few Word documents, checking a spreadsheet, and then asking an external AI tool to help write talking points, the licence cost was not the expensive part. The labour was.

That is where many businesses miss the point. They compare one AI subscription against another AI subscription. They should be comparing the full cost of the workflow.

The real question is not, “Can this cheaper tool produce a decent answer?”

The better question is, “How much work did a person have to do before the tool became useful?”

Integration changes the value equation

This is where Copilot needs to be judged differently.

The value is not simply that Copilot can write text. Plenty of tools can write text. The value is that Copilot can work across the Microsoft 365 environment where the business already keeps its conversations, files, meetings, decisions, and commitments.

Take a simple client meeting. Before the meeting, someone may need to review the last email thread in Outlook, check the proposal in SharePoint, scan the Teams channel, and remind themselves what was agreed last time. With Copilot, that preparation can happen much closer to the flow of work.

That matters because most organisations do not have a shortage of AI tools. They have a shortage of clean handoffs, reliable context, and time.

A cheaper AI tool may still be useful. I use different tools for different jobs. But if I have to manually gather the context, remove sensitive material, paste information into another window, check what I’m allowed to share, and then move the output back into Word, Outlook, or Teams, the friction is real.

That friction has a cost. It just does not appear neatly on the licence invoice.

The governance question does not go away

There is another issue that often gets skipped in the price discussion.

If staff are already using external AI tools, the organisation still has to answer some uncomfortable questions. What information is being pasted into those tools? Which accounts are being used? Are outputs being stored somewhere? Are client details, internal plans, or commercial information being exposed without anyone noticing?

This is where Microsoft 365 integration is not just a productivity argument. It is also a governance argument.

Copilot does not remove the need for good information management. If permissions are a mess in SharePoint or OneDrive, Copilot will expose that problem very quickly. But at least the discussion happens inside an environment the business can govern using familiar Microsoft 365 controls such as Entra, Purview, Conditional Access, and sensitivity labels.

That is a different operating model from hoping every staff member makes the right judgement when copying business data into a consumer-style AI service.

The decision is about work, not tools

I do not think every person in every business needs a full Copilot licence on day one. That is usually the wrong starting point.

I would start with the jobs where context matters most. Sales preparation. Client service. Internal reporting. Project coordination. Executive briefings. Anywhere people spend too much time stitching information together before they can make a decision.

Then measure the improvement in the work, not just the impressiveness of the output.

Standalone AI tools will continue to improve. Some will be excellent. But Microsoft 365 Copilot is not trying to win by being another blank chat box. Its real argument is proximity to the work.

If businesses only compare AI tools by subscription price, Copilot will often look expensive.

If they compare it against time lost searching, summarising, retyping, checking, copying, and second-guessing, the conversation changes.

That is the discussion worth having.

The Harder You Work, the Luckier You Get

image

Every so often I hear someone describe another person’s success as luck.

“They were in the right place at the right time.”

“They happened to meet the right person.”

“They caught the wave before everyone else.”

Maybe. But the longer I’ve been in business, the less convinced I am that luck arrives out of nowhere.

What I’ve noticed is that the people who seem lucky are usually the ones who have spent years putting themselves in a position where opportunities can find them.

From the outside, success often looks sudden. From the inside, it rarely is.

Luck Likes Preparation

In the Microsoft 365 space, I’ve seen this play out countless times.

Someone appears to become an overnight authority on Copilot. Suddenly they’re speaking at events, being interviewed, attracting new clients, and building a strong reputation.

What people don’t see are the hundreds of hours spent before that point. The early morning study sessions. The testing in trial tenants. The failed experiments. The blog posts that hardly anyone read. The presentations delivered to small audiences before bigger opportunities appeared.

When Microsoft 365 Copilot became a major topic, the people who had already been investing time in understanding the technology looked lucky.

The reality was that they had simply done the work before the opportunity arrived.

Luck often arrives disguised as preparation.

Opportunities Usually Start Small

Most people are waiting for a big break.

What I see instead is a series of small breaks that compound over time.

A single LinkedIn post leads to a conversation.

That conversation leads to a meeting.

The meeting turns into a project.

The project creates a customer reference.

The reference opens another door.

None of those events look significant on their own, but together they create momentum.

I often compare it to using Copilot in Outlook. You don’t suddenly save ten hours a day. What happens is that you save a few minutes here and there. A faster email response. A quicker summary of a meeting. Less time searching through conversations.

Individually those gains feel minor.

Repeat them every day and the impact becomes substantial.

The same applies to career growth, business development, and personal learning. Small actions performed consistently create outcomes that seem lucky to everyone else.

The Work Nobody Sees Matters Most

One of the lessons that continues to stand out to me is that visible success is only a small part of the story.

The public sees the presentation.

They don’t see the preparation.

They see the successful project.

They don’t see the problems solved along the way.

They see the confident recommendation.

They don’t see the years spent learning enough to make that recommendation with confidence.

That’s why I encourage people to focus less on chasing opportunities and more on becoming ready for them.

Spend time learning.

Build relationships before you need them.

Share what you know.

Experiment with new tools.

Ask questions.

Stay curious.

In my experience, these activities rarely deliver immediate rewards. What they do instead is increase the number of situations where good things can happen.

And that’s where luck begins to appear.

Luck Is Often a By-Product

When I look back across my own career, many of the most valuable opportunities seemed unexpected at the time.

A conversation led to a partnership.

A presentation led to a client engagement.

A blog post opened a door I didn’t know existed.

None of those outcomes were planned in detail.

What was planned was the effort beforehand.

The study.

The writing.

The testing.

The willingness to keep moving forward even when there was no immediate payoff.

That’s why I’ve come to believe that luck isn’t something you wait for.

It’s something you quietly create.

The harder you work, the more skills you build. The more skills you build, the more opportunities you recognise. The more opportunities you recognise, the luckier you appear.

And from where I’m standing, that’s a much better strategy than hoping luck simply turns up on its own.

The Real Copilot Risk Is Not the Technology

image

I’ve seen this pattern too many times now.

A business buys a new system. Everyone is excited for about a week. There is a launch email, maybe a short demo, possibly a recording nobody watches. Then the tool slowly disappears into the background.

The invoices keep arriving.

The business keeps paying.

The staff go back to doing things the old way.

That is the real fear many organisations have with Microsoft 365 Copilot. Not that it won’t work. The fear is that it will work, but nobody will build the habit of using it often enough to make the cost feel justified.

And that is a very different problem.

Access is not adoption

Turning on a licence is the easy part. It feels like progress because something has happened. A box has been ticked. A user now has access. The project can be marked as deployed.

But access does not change behaviour.

If a staff member opens Outlook tomorrow and sees Copilot available, they still have to know what to do with it. They have to understand when to use it, what to ask, what not to include, how to judge the output, and how it fits into the work they already do.

If they don’t know that, they won’t complain loudly. They’ll just stop using it.

That is the quiet failure. No drama. No outage. No angry board meeting. Just a lot of paid licences sitting there while people keep manually reading email threads, rewriting documents, and sitting through meetings without ever using the tools they already have.

People need a reason, not a feature tour

Most adoption efforts fail because they start with the product instead of the work.

Showing people a list of Copilot capabilities is not enough. A sales person does not need an abstract overview of AI. They need to see how Copilot in Outlook can summarise a long customer thread before a call. A manager does not need another productivity lecture. They need to see how Copilot in Teams can pull actions and decisions from a meeting so they can follow up properly.

That is where adoption starts.

One small, useful moment.

Not “here is everything Copilot can do”.

More like, “next time this happens, try this”.

That means every rollout needs scenarios. Real ones. The sort of things people already do every week. Summarise meeting notes. Prepare for a client conversation. Rewrite a difficult email. Compare information in a Word document. Build a first draft from scattered notes in SharePoint.

If people get one practical win, they are more likely to come back. If they get three practical wins, a habit starts forming.

Managers matter more than launch emails

A lot of organisations underestimate the role of managers in Copilot adoption.

If the manager doesn’t use it, the team probably won’t either. If the manager treats it as optional experimentation, the team will do the same. If the manager uses it openly in a meeting, asks better questions, and shares where it helped, that changes the signal.

People copy what leaders value.

This is why I think Copilot adoption needs to be treated as a leadership activity, not just an IT rollout. IT can enable the service. IT can secure it. IT can provide the guidance. But business leaders have to connect Copilot to actual work outcomes.

Otherwise, it becomes another tool someone bought for everyone else to use.

Adoption needs a rhythm

The organisations that get value from Copilot won’t be the ones that simply bought the licences. They will be the ones that built a rhythm around usage.

Short training.

Useful examples.

Internal champions.

Follow-up sessions.

Clear boundaries.

Shared wins.

Regular review of what is actually being used.

That does not have to be complicated, but it does have to be deliberate. A Copilot rollout without enablement is just a cost centre waiting to be questioned.

The technology is not the hardest part.

The hard part is getting people to change a small piece of how they work every day.

That is where the value lives.

And that is where the work has to be done.