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 | 1.05M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
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 | $30.00 |
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 | $180.00 |
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 | — |
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. | — | $15.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $90.00OpenAI |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $15,000OpenAI list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 89.3% |
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% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 42.7% |
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. | — | 58.7% |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | — | 83.3% |
FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | — | 50% |
FrontierMath · Tier 4Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | — | 38% |
ARC-AGI-1Reasoning — accuracy on the first edition of the abstract grid reasoning benchmark | — | 94.5% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 94.4% |
FinanceAgent v1.1Finance — performance on financial research tasks in the v1.1 evaluation | — | 61.5% |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | — | 82% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Mar 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.4-ProvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos 5.2vsMuse EmberGPT-5.4-ProvsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5.2vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.4-ProvsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.4-ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.2vsMistral Large 4GPT-5.4-ProvsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.4-ProvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.2 and GPT-5.4-Pro don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Claude Mythos 5.2 is cheaper on both input and output: $8.00 vs $30.00 per million input tokens, and $40.00 vs $180.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Claude Mythos 5.2 requires organization verification. GPT-5.4-Pro shipped 249 days before Claude Mythos 5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.2) vs 1.05M (GPT-5.4-Pro).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos 5.2 and GPT-5.4-Pro don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.