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. | — | $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. | — | $180.00 |
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 |
| — | $15,000OpenAI list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 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. | 64.7% | 58.7% |
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% | 94.4% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 89.3% |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 83.1% | — |
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% |
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% | — |
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% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 86.1% | — |
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% | — |
GraphWalks BFS (256K–1M)Long context — breadth-first search F1 on the 200 GraphWalks problems with 256K to 1M tokens of context | 80% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Apr 7 2026 | Mar 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos PreviewvsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.4-ProvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos PreviewvsMuse EmberGPT-5.4-ProvsMuse EmberClaude Mythos PreviewvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.4-ProvsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos PreviewvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.4-ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos PreviewvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.4-ProvsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos PreviewvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.4-ProvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos Preview leads GPT-5.4-Pro on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (Humanity's Last Exam, GPQA Diamond). Only GPT-5.4-Pro has a verified first-party price for an available API: $30.00 per million input tokens and $180.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Mythos Preview. GPT-5.4-Pro shipped 33 days before Claude Mythos Preview, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos Preview) vs 1.05M (GPT-5.4-Pro).
On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 56.8% vs GPT-5.4-Pro at 42.7%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 64.7% vs GPT-5.4-Pro at 58.7%. On GPQA Diamond, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 94.5% vs GPT-5.4-Pro at 94.4%.