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 | 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. | $8.00 | $0.05 |
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 | $0.40 |
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 | $0.005 |
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. | — | $0.025OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.20OpenAI |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $30.00OpenAI 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. | — | 54.7% |
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% | — |
Aider Polyglot (diff)Coding — editing code in six languages using the diff edit format | — | 48.4% |
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% | — |
τ²-bench · retailAgentic tasks — task success in the retail domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 62.3% |
τ²-bench · airlineAgentic tasks — task success in the airline domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 41% |
τ²-bench · telecomAgentic tasks — task success in the telecom domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 35.5% |
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. | — | 8.7% |
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% | — |
AIME 2025Reasoning — single-answer accuracy on the 2025 invitational mathematics exam without tools | — | 85.2% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 71.2% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | — | 62.7% |
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% | — |
MMMU-Pro · standard and vision meanMultimodal reasoning — average across the standard and vision sets | — | 62.6% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 75.6% |
GraphWalks BFS (<128K)Long context — breadth-first traversal accuracy for inputs shorter than 128K tokens | — | 64% |
GraphWalks parents (<128K)Long context — parent-node retrieval accuracy for inputs shorter than 128K tokens | — | 43.8% |
OpenAI MRCR (2 needles) · 128KLong context — retrieval of two matching turns in the original MRCR evaluation | — | 43.2% |
OpenAI MRCR (2 needles) · 256KLong context — retrieval of two matching turns in the original MRCR evaluation | — | 34.9% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Aug 7 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5 nanovsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Fable 5.2vsMuse EmberGPT-5 nanovsMuse EmberClaude Fable 5.2vsGrok 4.7GPT-5 nanovsGrok 4.7Claude Fable 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5 nanovsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Fable 5.2vsMistral Large 4GPT-5 nanovsMistral Large 4Claude Fable 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5 nanovsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GPT-5 nano is cheaper on both input and output: $0.05 vs $8.00 per million input tokens, and $0.40 vs $40.00 per million output tokens. GPT-5 nano shipped 459 days before Claude Fable 5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Fable 5.2) vs 400k (GPT-5 nano).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.