Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 100k | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.30 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $2.50 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.03 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.15Google AI Studio |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.25Google AI Studio |
| — | $185Google list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 66% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 54.2% |
HumanEvalFunction synthesis — 164 small Python problems: the AI is given a function's description and has to write the working function. This was the coding benchmark of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 era, before the field moved to fixing real bugs in real repositories. Higher is better. | 71.2% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 54% |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | — | 49% |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | 78.5% | — |
GSM8KGrade-school math — Grade-school maths word problems that take a few steps of arithmetic to work through. It separated the models of 2022 and 2023 sharply, then saturated. One caveat on the historical numbers: OpenAI included part of the GSM8K training set in GPT-4's pre-training mix, so GPT-4's score is not a clean few-shot result. Higher is better. | 88% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 74% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1140 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Jul 11 2023 | Jul 21 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude 2vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 SolClaude 2vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark OpenClaude 2vsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Claude 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude 2vsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4Claude 2vsKimi K3Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude 2 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude 2. Claude 2 shipped 1106 days before Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 100k (Claude 2) vs 1M (Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude 2 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.