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. | 100k | 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. | — | $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. | — | $10.00 |
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 |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 55.5% |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main splitAgentic coding — A set of very hard, frontier-difficulty coding tasks an AI agent has to complete end to end. The score is the share of tasks in the main split it solves. Higher is better. | — | 52.1% |
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. | 58.7% | — |
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. | — | 70.6% |
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% |
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. | 86.7% | — |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | — | 1844 |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | — | 1811 |
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. | — | 61.6% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Release date | Aug 9 2023 | Sep 28 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Instant 1.2vsGPT-6 SolClaude Sonnet 5.5vsGPT-6 SolClaude Instant 1.2vsGemini 3.8 FlashClaude Sonnet 5.5vsGemini 3.8 FlashClaude Instant 1.2vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Sonnet 5.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Instant 1.2vsGrok 4.7Claude Sonnet 5.5vsGrok 4.7Claude Instant 1.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Sonnet 5.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Instant 1.2vsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Sonnet 5.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Frequently asked questions
Claude Instant 1.2 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a verified first-party API price: $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Instant 1.2. Claude Instant 1.2 shipped 1146 days before Claude Sonnet 5.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 100k (Claude Instant 1.2) vs 1M (Claude Sonnet 5.5).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Instant 1.2 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.