Four times to stay where you are
Do not switch for a marginal quality gain, in the middle of a long piece of work, to a product younger than a year with no revenue, or because of a single bad session. All 4 are common triggers and all 4 usually cost more than they return.
The case for switching is easy to write and the case for staying is rarely written. Both matter, and the case for staying is missing from every comparison.
A marginal gain
A product that is slightly better at your work does not repay the weeks of rebuilt habits. The threshold worth moving for is a difference you noticed without looking for it, not one you found by testing carefully.
Mid-project
A long piece of work carries context that lives in your conversations and in your tuned instructions. Moving in the middle abandons it. Finishing first costs nothing and removes the risk entirely.
To something very new with no revenue
A generous new product with no visible funding is in the phase that ends. Building a habit on it means rebuilding in a year. Waiting a year costs you a year of a slightly better product and saves the second move.
After one bad session
Every product produces a bad session: a bad answer, a refusal that made no sense, an outage. One is noise. The test is whether the same thing happens 3 times, and by then you will have a real reason rather than an irritated reaction.
What people ask before switching
What is a good enough reason?
A repeated failure in the work you actually do, a policy change you disagree with, or a limit you meet regularly. All 3 are patterns rather than moments.
Does keeping 2 avoid the question?
Partly, and it splits your habits between them. It works well for a transition and poorly as a permanent arrangement.
Is loyalty ever rational here?
Familiarity is rational; loyalty is not. The distinction is whether you would still choose it knowing what you know now.
Test alongside first, and switch only on a pattern.
Open the chat