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 |
| 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. | 46% | 32% |
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. | 33.4% | — |
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. | 92% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 59.4% | — |
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. | 90.4% | — |
MGSMMultilingual math — solving grade-school word problems translated into multiple languages | 91.6% | — |
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. | 96.4% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68.3% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Jun 20 2024 | Nov 13 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude 3.5 SonnetvsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.1-CodexvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude 3.5 SonnetvsMuse EmberGPT-5.1-CodexvsMuse EmberClaude 3.5 SonnetvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.1-CodexvsGrok 4.7Claude 3.5 SonnetvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.1-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude 3.5 SonnetvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.1-CodexvsMistral Large 4Claude 3.5 SonnetvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.1-CodexvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads GPT-5.1-Codex on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Claude 3.5 Sonnet shipped 511 days before GPT-5.1-Codex, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude 3.5 Sonnet) vs 400k (GPT-5.1-Codex).
On BullshitBench v2, Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads at 46% vs GPT-5.1-Codex at 32%.