Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 1T |
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 | 256k |
| 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. | — | $0.95 |
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. | — | $4.00 |
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. | — | $0.16 |
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. | — | $0.465Inceptron |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.40DigitalOcean |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 65% |
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. | — | 80.2% |
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. | — | 52% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 89.6% |
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% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 83.2% |
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. | — | 34.7% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 90.5% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 73.1% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Release date | Aug 9 2023 | Apr 21 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Instant 1.2vsGPT-6.1 SolKimi K2.6vsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Instant 1.2vsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K2.6vsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Instant 1.2vsMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2.6vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Instant 1.2vsGrok 4.7Kimi K2.6vsGrok 4.7Claude Instant 1.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashKimi K2.6vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Instant 1.2vsMistral Large 4Kimi K2.6vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Claude Instant 1.2 and Kimi K2.6 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Kimi K2.6 has a verified first-party API price: $0.95 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Instant 1.2. Claude Instant 1.2 shipped 986 days before Kimi K2.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 100k (Claude Instant 1.2) vs 256k (Kimi K2.6). Claude Instant 1.2 is closed, while Kimi K2.6 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Instant 1.2 and Kimi K2.6 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.