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 | 1M |
| 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. | — | $0.25 |
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. | — | $1.50 |
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. | — | $0.025 |
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. | — | $0.125Google |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.75Google |
| — | $125Google list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 77.8% | 38.3% |
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. | 56.8% | 16% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 94.5% | 86.9% |
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. | 79.6% | 54.3% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 86.1% | 73.2% |
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. | 93.2% | 75.6% |
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. | — | 11% |
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. | 93.9% | — |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 87.3% | — |
SWE-Bench MultimodalMultimodal coding — Real bug reports that arrive with pictures attached — a screenshot, a mockup, a page rendering wrongly — so the AI has to read the image as well as the code to work out what to fix. Higher is better. | 59% | — |
MLE-BenchML engineering — Can the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | — | 22% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 72% |
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. | — | 31% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 82% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 83.1% | — |
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. | 64.7% | — |
SimpleQA VerifiedKnowledge — accuracy on the vetted factual questions in SimpleQA Verified | — | 43.3% |
MMMLUKnowledge — average accuracy on multilingual translations of MMLU | — | 88.9% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 642 |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 76.8% |
GraphWalks BFS (256K–1M)Long context — breadth-first search F1 on the 200 GraphWalks problems with 256K to 1M tokens of context | 80% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | — | 60.1% |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | — | 12.3% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Apr 7 2026 | Mar 3 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos PreviewvsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos PreviewvsMuse EmberGemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsMuse EmberClaude Mythos PreviewvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos PreviewvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos PreviewvsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos PreviewvsKimi K3.1 ProGemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos Preview leads Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite on 6 of the 6 benchmarks they both report. Only Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party price for an available API: $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Mythos Preview. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite shipped 35 days before Claude Mythos Preview, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos Preview) vs 1M (Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite).
On SWE-Bench Pro, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 77.8% vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite at 38.3%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 56.8% vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite at 16%. On GPQA Diamond, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 94.5% vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite at 86.9%. On OSWorld-Verified, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 79.6% vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite at 54.3%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 86.1% vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite at 73.2%. On CharXiv Reasoning · with tools, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.2% vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite at 75.6%.