Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $10.00 | $2.00 |
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. | $50.00 | $6.00 |
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. | $1.00 | $0.30 |
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. | $10.00Amazon Bedrock | $2.00xAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $50.00Amazon Bedrock | $6.00xAI |
| 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. | 56% | 55% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 0.4% | 13.4% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 2.3% | 54.2% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 2.8% | 60.8% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 80.3% | 64.7% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 86.6% | 78% |
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. | 70% | 54% |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic 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. Higher is better. | 66.1% | 62% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 77% | 65% |
Frontier-Bench v0.1Agentic computer work — A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | 33.8% | 17.8% |
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. | 44.55% | 12.42% |
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. | 88% | 83.3% |
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. | 89.2% | 52.64% |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 11.25% | 12.92% |
MedScribeMedical admin work — Can the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | 88.52% | 86.88% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1760 | 1526 |
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. | 95.5% | — |
SWE-Bench MultimodalMultimodal coding — Real bug reports that arrive with pictures attached — a screenshot, a mockup, a page rendering wrongly — so the AI has to read the image as well as the code to work out what to fix. Higher is better. | 54.1% | — |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) · extended splitAgentic coding — frontier-difficulty agentic coding tasks (v1.1, extended split) | — | 56.6% |
APEX-SWEExpert software engineering — expert-level software-engineering tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 53.6% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 15.7% |
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. | 24.7% | — |
APEX-AgentsExpert agentic work — expert-level agentic work tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 47.1% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 86.9% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
CVE-BenchCybersecurity — Can the AI exploit real, publicly known security holes in web applications, in a sandbox built to resemble a live service? A measure of raw capability: it is run without the safeguards a deployed model carries. Higher is better. | — | 35.2% |
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. | 64.5% | — |
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. | 85% | — |
TaxEval v2Tax questions — A set of real tax questions created by Vals AI — can the AI give accurate answers about tax rules and filings? Higher is better. | 76.94% | — |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 63.3% | — |
AA Intelligence IndexOverall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | — | 56 |
GDPval-AAKnowledge work — Measures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1932 | — |
AA-BriefcaseKnowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | — | 1313 |
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. | 1518 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Jun 9 2026 | Jul 8 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5vsGPT-6.1 SolGrok 4.5vsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Fable 5vsGemini 4 ArgonGrok 4.5vsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Fable 5vsMuse Spark 1.3Grok 4.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Fable 5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGrok 4.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Fable 5vsMistral Large 4Grok 4.5vsMistral Large 4Claude Fable 5vsKimi K3Grok 4.5vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5 leads Grok 4.5 on 15 of the 16 benchmarks they both report. Grok 4.5 is cheaper on both input and output: $2.00 vs $10.00 per million input tokens, and $6.00 vs $50.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Claude Fable 5 shipped 29 days before Grok 4.5, 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, Claude Fable 5 leads at 56% vs Grok 4.5 at 55%. On Gray Swan IPI · k = 1, Claude Fable 5 leads at 0.4% vs Grok 4.5 at 13.4%. On Gray Swan IPI · k = 10, Claude Fable 5 leads at 2.3% vs Grok 4.5 at 54.2%. On Gray Swan IPI · k = 15, Claude Fable 5 leads at 2.8% vs Grok 4.5 at 60.8%. On SWE-Bench Pro, Claude Fable 5 leads at 80.3% vs Grok 4.5 at 64.7%. On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Claude Fable 5 leads at 86.6% vs Grok 4.5 at 78%. On DeepSWE 1.1, Claude Fable 5 leads at 70% vs Grok 4.5 at 54%. On DeepSWE 1.0, Claude Fable 5 leads at 66.1% vs Grok 4.5 at 62%. On Next.js Evals, Claude Fable 5 leads at 77% vs Grok 4.5 at 65%. On Frontier-Bench v0.1, Claude Fable 5 leads at 33.8% vs Grok 4.5 at 17.8%. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, Claude Fable 5 leads at 44.55% vs Grok 4.5 at 12.42%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Claude Fable 5 leads at 88% vs Grok 4.5 at 83.3%. On ARC-AGI-2, Claude Fable 5 leads at 89.2% vs Grok 4.5 at 52.64%. On Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, Grok 4.5 leads at 12.92% vs Claude Fable 5 at 11.25%. On MedScribe, Claude Fable 5 leads at 88.52% vs Grok 4.5 at 86.88%. On GDPval-AA v2, Claude Fable 5 leads at 1760 vs Grok 4.5 at 1526.