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. | 1M | 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. | $8.00 | — |
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. | $40.00 | — |
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. | $0.20 | — |
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. | — | $0.006Relace |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.2352DeepInfra |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $24.40Morph · fp8 | |
| Benchmarks | ||
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 74.2% | 42.6% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 51.4% | 60.5% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 77% |
FrontierSWE V2Ultra-long-horizon coding — Engineering problems that would occupy a person for days: systems implementation, performance work, scientific computing and AI research, with up to twenty hours per task. Partial credit is awarded, because finishing one outright is still rare. Higher is better. | 69.9% | — |
FrontierCode 2.0Agentic coding — whether a model’s code changes to open-source repositories would be merged by their maintainers (version 2.0); separate from FrontierCode v1.1 scores | 49.1% | — |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 68.2% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | — | 42.3% |
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. | — | 90.6% |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 74.6% | — |
RoboDojo SimRobotics — control of a simulated two-arm robot from camera images, average success rate | 64.9% | — |
WANDR (relaxed score)Agentic search — agentic web search, relaxed scoring | 82.1% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 42.6% |
OSWorld 2.1 · offlineAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | 89.3% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 35.4% |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1785 | — |
AA-Briefcase v1.1 (rubric)Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval, v1.1 rubric score; separate from the Elo rating | 66.1% | — |
Remote Labor Index (RLI)Knowledge work — real paid remote-work projects, scored on the share completed to client standard | 41.3% | — |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | — | 83% |
Chartography · no toolsChart tasks — The same chart-centred test with no tools: the AI has to read each chart unaided. Scores run far lower than the with-tools version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | 73.4% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1729 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Oct 17 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Fable 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Fable 5.2vsMuse EmberDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsMuse EmberClaude Fable 5.2vsGrok 4.7DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsGrok 4.7Claude Fable 5.2vsMistral Large 4DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsMistral Large 4Claude Fable 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (Humanity's Last Exam, AutomationBench). Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 shipped 23 days before Claude Fable 5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Fable 5.2) vs 1M (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017). Claude Fable 5.2 is closed, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is open weight.
On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Claude Fable 5.2 leads at 74.2% vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 at 42.6%. On AutomationBench, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads at 60.5% vs Claude Fable 5.2 at 51.4%.