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 | 400k |
| 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 | $1.25 |
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 | $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 | $0.125 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.625OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $5.00OpenAI |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $750OpenAI list price | |
| 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. | — | 25% |
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. | — | 76.3% |
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% | — |
De novo binder design (24 hr)Protein design — de novo protein binder design within a 24-hour budget, as reported by Anthropic | 85.1% | — |
τ²-bench · retailAgentic tasks — task success in the retail domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 77.9% |
τ²-bench · airlineAgentic tasks — task success in the airline domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 67% |
τ²-bench · telecom, adjusted promptAgentic tasks — telecom task success with an extra general instruction in the system prompt | — | 95.6% |
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% | — |
AIME 2025Reasoning — single-answer accuracy on the 2025 invitational mathematics exam without tools | — | 94% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 88.1% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85.4% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Nov 12 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.1vsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos 5.2vsMuse EmberGPT-5.1vsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5.2vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.1vsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.2vsMistral Large 4GPT-5.1vsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.1vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.2 and GPT-5.1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GPT-5.1 is cheaper on both input and output: $1.25 vs $8.00 per million input tokens, and $10.00 vs $40.00 per million output tokens. Claude Mythos 5.2 requires organization verification. GPT-5.1 shipped 362 days before Claude Mythos 5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.2) vs 400k (GPT-5.1).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos 5.2 and GPT-5.1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.