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. | 200k | 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. | — | $0.10 |
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. | — | $0.40 |
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. | — | $0.01 |
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. | $15.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.05Google AI Studio |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $75.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.20Google AI Studio |
| $6,750Amazon Bedrock | $40.00Google list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 43% | — |
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. | 74.5% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.9% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Aug 5 2025 | Jun 17 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4.1vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Opus 4.1vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark OpenClaude Opus 4.1vsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 4.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Opus 4.1vsMistral Large 4Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4Claude Opus 4.1vsKimi K3Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party API price: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Opus 4.1. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite shipped 49 days before Claude Opus 4.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude Opus 4.1) vs 1M (Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Opus 4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.