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. | $10.00Verified organizations only | $1.50 |
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 | $7.50 |
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. | $0.25 | $0.075 |
| $4,500Anthropic list price | $675Google list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 60.9% | — |
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. | — | 51.4% |
De novo binder design (24 hr)Protein design — de novo protein binder design within a 24-hour budget, as reported by Anthropic | 79.1% | — |
CyScenarioBenchCybersecurity — multi-step cybersecurity scenarios; each lab runs its own unique task set, so scores from different labs do not compare | 61.7% | — |
CVE RediscoveryCybersecurity — Anthropic internal evaluation: share of 1,829 published CVEs a model finds on its own from a snapshot of the project before the fix | 78.3% | — |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 44.1% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 90.3% | — |
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. | — | 77.6% |
AutomationBench (Artificial Analysis)Business workflows — The same business-workflow test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab, and graded strict pass@1: a workflow counts only if the whole of it is right on the first attempt. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run AutomationBench scores. Higher is better. | — | 76.1% |
Vending-Bench 2 (USD)Business simulation — ending bank balance in US dollars in Andon Labs’ vending-business simulation; higher is better | — | 14549 |
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. | — | 66.6% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Sep 1 2026 | Nov 12 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.1vsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 HydrogenvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos 5.1vsMuse EmberGemini 4 HydrogenvsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5.1vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 HydrogenvsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 HydrogenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.1vsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.1vsKimi K3.1 ProGemini 4 HydrogenvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.1 and Gemini 4 Hydrogen don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper on both input and output: $1.50 vs $10.00 per million input tokens, and $7.50 vs $50.00 per million output tokens. Claude Mythos 5.1 requires organization verification. Claude Mythos 5.1 shipped 72 days before Gemini 4 Hydrogen, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.1) vs 1M (Gemini 4 Hydrogen).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos 5.1 and Gemini 4 Hydrogen don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.