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. | $8.00Verified 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. | $40.00 | $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. | $0.20 | $0.075 |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $675Google 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% | 51.4% |
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% | — |
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 | Nov 9 2026 | Nov 12 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 HydrogenvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos 5.2vsMuse EmberGemini 4 HydrogenvsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5.2vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 HydrogenvsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 HydrogenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.2vsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProGemini 4 HydrogenvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.2 leads Gemini 4 Hydrogen on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1). Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper on both input and output: $1.50 vs $8.00 per million input tokens, and $7.50 vs $40.00 per million output tokens. Claude Mythos 5.2 requires organization verification. Claude Mythos 5.2 shipped 3 days before Gemini 4 Hydrogen, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.2) vs 1M (Gemini 4 Hydrogen).
On Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, Claude Mythos 5.2 leads at 75.3% vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen at 51.4%.