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. | 200k | 400k |
| 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. | — | $12.50 |
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. | — | $75.00 |
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. | — | $1.25 |
| — | $6,250OpenAI list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 49% | — |
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. | 93.7% | — |
Advanced Cybersecurity Completion Rate (Internal)Agentic tasks — share of advanced cyber requests the model responds to; measures willingness to answer, not exploit success | — | 95% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 65% | — |
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. | 90.5% | — |
MGSMMultilingual math — solving grade-school word problems translated into multiple languages | 92.5% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 70.4% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Oct 22 2024 | Aug 10 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.6 CybervsGemini 4 CarbonClaude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsMuse EmberGPT-5.6 CybervsMuse EmberClaude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.6 CybervsGrok 4.7Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.6 CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsMistral Large 4GPT-5.6 CybervsMistral Large 4Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.6 CybervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) and GPT-5.6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5.6 Cyber has a verified first-party price for an available API: $12.50 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded). Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) shipped 657 days before GPT-5.6 Cyber, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded)) vs 400k (GPT-5.6 Cyber).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude 3.5 Sonnet (upgraded) and GPT-5.6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.