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 | — |
| 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. | $8.00Verified organizations only | — |
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 | — |
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 | — |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 75.3% | 64.8% |
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. | — | 0% |
SWE-sweepAgentic coding — subtask-weighted reward for software engineering with the mini-swe-agent harness | — | 9.6% |
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. | — | 61.2% |
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 | — | 41.1% |
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. | — | 65.2% |
De novo binder design (24 hr)Protein design — de novo protein binder design within a 24-hour budget, as reported by Anthropic | 85.1% | — |
CyScenarioBenchCybersecurity — multi-step cybersecurity scenarios; each lab runs its own unique task set, so scores from different labs do not compare | 76.3% | — |
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 | 89.6% | — |
RiemannBenchAdvanced mathematics — mathematical problem-solving evaluation published by Surge | — | 80% |
Agents’ Last Exam v1.1Agentic computer use — averaged rubric score on the 122-task October 17, 2026 v1.1 set, using ALE-Claw with a five-hour limit; separate from earlier ALE scores | — | 77.4% |
CWE-bench v1Security patching — Collinear AI’s programmatically graded security-patch pass@1 rate; separate from exploit-generation benchmarks | — | 71% |
ExploitGym (causal pass rate) · 10-hour budgetCybersecurity — share of tasks producing a verified exploit of the intended vulnerability, with mitigations off; not a count of solved instances | — | 54.8% |
ExploitGym (causal pass rate) · 6-hour budgetCybersecurity — share of tasks producing a verified exploit of the intended vulnerability, with mitigations off; not a count of solved instances | — | 53.5% |
SEC-bench Pro (JavaScript)Vulnerability discovery — pass@1 on the 183-task May 2026 JavaScript-engine split, averaged over three trials with the Antigravity harness | — | 88.2% |
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. | — | 81.5% |
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. | — | 53.9% |
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Overall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index, version 5.0 with tools; separate from earlier index editions | — | 59 |
Vals Index v2.2Professional work — Vals AI composite evaluation of professional tasks, version 2.2 | — | 70.4% |
Vending-Bench 2 (USD)Business simulation — ending bank balance in US dollars in Andon Labs’ vending-business simulation; higher is better | — | 16484 |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | — | 1611 |
AA-Briefcase v1.1 (rubric)Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval, v1.1 rubric score; separate from the Elo rating | — | 61.8% |
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. | — | 72.5% |
Blueprint-Bench 2Spatial reasoning — Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | — | 58.6% |
GraphWalks BFS (256K–1M)Long context — breadth-first search F1 on the 200 GraphWalks problems with 256K to 1M tokens of context | — | 96.2% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Oct 28 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 CarbonvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos 5.2vsMuse EmberGemini 4 CarbonvsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5.2vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 CarbonvsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 CarbonvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.2vsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 CarbonvsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProGemini 4 CarbonvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.2 leads Gemini 4 Carbon on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1). Only Claude Mythos 5.2 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 4 Carbon. Claude Mythos 5.2 requires organization verification. Gemini 4 Carbon shipped 12 days before Claude Mythos 5.2, 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 Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, Claude Mythos 5.2 leads at 75.3% vs Gemini 4 Carbon at 64.8%.