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 | $1.00 |
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 | $5.00 |
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 | $0.05 |
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. | — | $0.50OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.50OpenAI |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $225OpenAI | |
| 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% | 58.3% |
OpenAI Factuality (Internal)Factual error rate — OpenAI's internal test uses prompts designed to provoke factual mistakes. The score is the percentage of answers containing at least one factual error, at the model's best published reasoning effort. It is not the percentage of individual claims that are wrong or an error rate for everyday use. Lower is better. | — | 4.3% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 100% |
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. | — | 50.3% |
De novo binder design (24 hr)Protein design — de novo protein binder design within a 24-hour budget, as reported by Anthropic | 85.1% | — |
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. | — | 74.2% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 60% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 85.5% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Oct 26 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-6.1 TerravsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos 5.2vsMuse EmberGPT-6.1 TerravsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5.2vsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 TerravsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6.1 TerravsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.2vsMistral Large 4GPT-6.1 TerravsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-6.1 TerravsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.2 leads GPT-6.1 Terra on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1). GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper on both input and output: $1.00 vs $8.00 per million input tokens, and $5.00 vs $40.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Claude Mythos 5.2 requires organization verification. GPT-6.1 Terra shipped 14 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-6.1 Terra).
On Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, Claude Mythos 5.2 leads at 75.3% vs GPT-6.1 Terra at 58.3%.