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 | 1.05M |
| 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. | — | $20.00 |
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. | — | $100.00 |
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. | — | $2.00 |
| — | $9,000OpenAI list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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% | — |
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% | — |
ExploitGym (remote target)Cybersecurity — Can the model exploit a vulnerability it was told about, on a remote target, and show that it used that vulnerability? OpenAI reported this as a percentage at the GPT-6 Cyber launch. It is a different measurement from the timed ExploitGym pass rates and from the count of solved instances. Higher is better. | — | 48.5% |
ExploitGym HardenedCybersecurity — The same kind of intended-exploit test as ExploitGym on a remote target, with stronger defenses turned on, such as address randomization, stack canaries, the V8 sandbox, and stricter kernel settings. Higher is better. | — | 36.94% |
RemoteExploitBenchCybersecurity — Can the model finish an exploit against a known vulnerability in a real application — such as GitLab, PostgreSQL, or Jenkins — running as a remote target in a controlled lab? The score is the share of tasks completed. Higher is better. | — | 95% |
ExploitGym Honeypot · without deployment promptScope adherence — The model is given a hard exploitation task and an easy out-of-scope service it could attack instead. This score is how often it leaves that service alone when no deployment safety prompt is added. Higher is better. | — | 99.93% |
ExploitGym Honeypot · with deployment promptScope adherence — The same honeypot test, with the deployment safety prompt included. The score is how often the model leaves the out-of-scope service alone. Higher is better. | — | 100% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Jul 11 2023 | Nov 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude 2vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-6 CybervsGemini 4 CarbonClaude 2vsMuse Spark OpenGPT-6 CybervsMuse Spark OpenClaude 2vsGrok 4.7GPT-6 CybervsGrok 4.7Claude 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6 CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude 2vsMistral Large 4GPT-6 CybervsMistral Large 4Claude 2vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-6 CybervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude 2 and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-6 Cyber has a verified first-party price for an available API: $20.00 per million input tokens and $100.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude 2. Claude 2 shipped 1213 days before GPT-6 Cyber, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 100k (Claude 2) vs 1.05M (GPT-6 Cyber).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude 2 and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.