Compare AI models
| 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. | — | $1.75 |
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. | — | $14.00 |
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. | — | $0.175 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.875OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $7.00OpenAI |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 10% | 38% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 33.3% | 92.4% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 80% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 65.8% |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | — | 52.9% |
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. | — | 47.3% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Mar 4 2024 | Dec 11 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude 3 HaikuvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.2vsGemini 4 ArgonClaude 3 HaikuvsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-5.2vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude 3 HaikuvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.2vsGrok 4.7Claude 3 HaikuvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude 3 HaikuvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.2vsMistral Large 4Claude 3 HaikuvsKimi K3GPT-5.2vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.2 leads Claude 3 Haiku on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, GPQA Diamond). Only GPT-5.2 has a verified first-party API price: $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude 3 Haiku. Claude 3 Haiku shipped 647 days before GPT-5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On BullshitBench v2, GPT-5.2 leads at 38% vs Claude 3 Haiku at 10%. On GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.2 leads at 92.4% vs Claude 3 Haiku at 33.3%.