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. | $10.00Verified organizations only | $12.50 |
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. | $50.00 | $75.00 |
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. | $1.00 | $1.25 |
| $4,500Anthropic list price | $6,250OpenAI list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 80.3% | — |
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. | 95.5% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 88% | — |
Advanced Cybersecurity Completion Rate (Internal)Agentic tasks — share of advanced cyber requests the model responds to; measures willingness to answer, not exploit success | — | 95% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 88% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 83.8% | — |
RiemannBenchAdvanced mathematics — mathematical problem-solving evaluation published by Surge | 55% | — |
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. | 59% | — |
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. | 64.5% | — |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 46.1% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 83.9% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 85% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 16.9% | — |
HealthBench Professional · rawHealth — physician-graded conversations, scored before adjustment for answer length | 70.3% | — |
HealthBench Professional · length-adjustedHealth — The same physician-graded health conversations as HealthBench Professional, scored with an adjustment for how long the answer is — so a model cannot gain by padding its reply. The adjustment moves scores by several points, so these numbers are not interchangeable with the unadjusted ones. Higher is better. | 66% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.9% | — |
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | 93.5% | — |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | 85.2% | — |
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. | 36% | — |
OfficeQA Pro · extracted textDocument Q&A — answering the 133 Treasury document questions with extracted text and code execution available | 67.1% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Jun 9 2026 | Aug 10 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.6 CybervsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos 5vsMuse EmberGPT-5.6 CybervsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.6 CybervsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.6 CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5vsMistral Large 4GPT-5.6 CybervsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.6 CybervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5 and GPT-5.6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Claude Mythos 5 is cheaper on both input and output: $10.00 vs $12.50 per million input tokens, and $50.00 vs $75.00 per million output tokens. Claude Mythos 5 requires organization verification. Claude Mythos 5 shipped 62 days before GPT-5.6 Cyber, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5) vs 400k (GPT-5.6 Cyber).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos 5 and GPT-5.6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.