Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 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. | $4.00 | — |
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. | $20.00 | — |
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. | $0.20 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $4.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.05DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $20.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.10DeepInfra |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 63% | 3% |
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | 11.2% | — |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | 57.8% | — |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main splitAgentic coding — A set of very hard, frontier-difficulty coding tasks an AI agent has to complete end to end. The score is the share of tasks in the main split it solves. Higher is better. | 54.4% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 97% | — |
Supabase Evals · with skillsSupabase coding — Supabase's own open benchmark: a coding agent is dropped into a real Supabase project and asked to do real work — set up a schema, fix a broken security policy, debug an Edge Function — and every run is checked against a live Supabase stack. This is the headline number, where the agent has Supabase's own skills loaded, as most people building on Supabase would. The score is the share of scenarios it got right. Higher is better. | 89.9% | — |
Supabase Evals · no skillsSupabase coding — The same Supabase scenarios, but with none of Supabase's skills loaded — so it measures what the model already knows about building on Supabase, rather than how well it follows Supabase's supplied instructions. Higher is better. | 91.3% | — |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 66.4% | — |
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. | 58.7% | — |
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. | 67.7% | — |
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. | 91.7% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 81.8% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 40% | — |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | 1846 | — |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1822 | — |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | 89% | — |
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. | 64.4% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | 2065 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Sep 22 2026 | Mar 12 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 5.5vsGPT-6.1 SolGemma 3vsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Opus 5.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemma 3vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Opus 5.5vsGrok 4.7Gemma 3vsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 5.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemma 3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Opus 5.5vsMistral Large 4Gemma 3vsMistral Large 4Claude Opus 5.5vsKimi K3Gemma 3vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 5.5 leads Gemma 3 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only Claude Opus 5.5 has a verified first-party API price: $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemma 3. Gemma 3 shipped 559 days before Claude Opus 5.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Opus 5.5 is closed, while Gemma 3 is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Opus 5.5 leads at 63% vs Gemma 3 at 3%.