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 | 256k |
| 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 | $2.00 |
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 | $0.20 |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $300SpaceXSI list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 70.8% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | SpaceXSI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Aug 28 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraGrok Code Fast 1vsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonGrok Code Fast 1vsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos 5.2vsMuse EmberGrok Code Fast 1vsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Grok Code Fast 1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.2vsMistral Large 4Grok Code Fast 1vsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProGrok Code Fast 1vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.2 and Grok Code Fast 1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Grok Code Fast 1 is cheaper on both input and output: $1.00 vs $8.00 per million input tokens, and $2.00 vs $40.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Claude Mythos 5.2 requires organization verification. Grok Code Fast 1 shipped 438 days before Claude Mythos 5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.2) vs 256k (Grok Code Fast 1).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos 5.2 and Grok Code Fast 1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.