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. | — | $1.50 |
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. | — | $7.50 |
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. | — | $0.075 |
| — | $675Google 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. | 34% | — |
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. | 72.5% | — |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | — | 51.4% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 79.6% | — |
OSWorld 2.1 · offlineAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | — | 77.6% |
AutomationBench (Artificial Analysis)Business workflows — The same business-workflow test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab, and graded strict pass@1: a workflow counts only if the whole of it is right on the first attempt. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run AutomationBench scores. Higher is better. | — | 76.1% |
Vending-Bench 2 (USD)Business simulation — ending bank balance in US dollars in Andon Labs’ vending-business simulation; higher is better | — | 14549 |
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. | — | 66.6% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 76.5% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | May 22 2025 | Nov 12 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4vsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 HydrogenvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Opus 4vsMuse EmberGemini 4 HydrogenvsMuse EmberClaude Opus 4vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 HydrogenvsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 HydrogenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Opus 4vsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMistral Large 4Claude Opus 4vsKimi K3.1 ProGemini 4 HydrogenvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 4 Hydrogen don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 4 Hydrogen has a verified first-party price for an available API: $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Opus 4. Claude Opus 4 shipped 539 days before Gemini 4 Hydrogen, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude Opus 4) vs 1M (Gemini 4 Hydrogen).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 4 Hydrogen don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.