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. | — | $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. | — | $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. | — | $1.25 |
| — | $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. | 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% | — |
Advanced Cybersecurity Completion Rate (Internal)Agentic tasks — share of advanced cyber requests the model responds to; measures willingness to answer, not exploit success | — | 95% |
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 · 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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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 | Aug 10 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos PreviewvsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.6 CybervsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos PreviewvsMuse EmberGPT-5.6 CybervsMuse EmberClaude Mythos PreviewvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.6 CybervsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos PreviewvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.6 CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos PreviewvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.6 CybervsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos PreviewvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.6 CybervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos Preview and GPT-5.6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5.6 Cyber has a verified first-party price for an available API: $12.50 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Mythos Preview. Claude Mythos Preview shipped 125 days before GPT-5.6 Cyber, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos Preview) vs 400k (GPT-5.6 Cyber).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos Preview and GPT-5.6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.