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 | 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. | $5.00 | $10.00 |
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. | $25.00 | $50.00 |
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. | $0.50 | $1.00 |
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. | $5.00Amazon Bedrock | $5.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $25.00Amazon Bedrock | $25.00OpenAI |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 45.3% | 47.4% |
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. | 73% | 69% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 68.8% | 74.1% |
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. | 48% | 53.3% |
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. | 94% | 90% |
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. | 51.82% | 57.9% |
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. | 29% | 64.6% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 90.8% | 91.5% |
ARC-AGI-3Novel problem-solving — The third generation of the ARC-AGI series: instead of static puzzles, the AI is dropped into small interactive game-like environments it has never seen and has to figure out the rules and solve them on its own. Higher is better. | 30.2% | 99.9% |
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. | 90.4% | 95% |
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. | 26.9% | 41.4% |
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. | 1706 | 1872 |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 0.2% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 1.6% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 2% | — |
Auto-review circumvention (Internal)Safety-review circumvention — OpenAI's internal safety check on how often a model finds ways around its own automated review — the guardrail that inspects what it is about to do. This one counts failures, so lower is better and zero is the goal. | — | 0% |
ProgramBenchProgram reconstruction — The AI receives a working program and its documentation, then builds a replacement from scratch without the original source code, internet access or decompilation. The score is the percentage of 200 programs that pass every behavioral test. We record each model's best published mini-SWE-agent result, including higher reasoning efforts where available. Partial test-pass rates and almost-solved programs do not count toward this score. Equal scores share a rank here; the official board also uses partial progress to break ties. Higher is better. | 4.5% | — |
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. | 79.2% | — |
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. | 96% | — |
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. | 89.5% | — |
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. | 59.4% | — |
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. | 46.6% | — |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) · extended splitAgentic coding — frontier-difficulty agentic coding tasks (v1.1, extended split) | — | 64.5% |
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. | 92.8% | — |
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. | 89.9% | — |
AA Coding Agent IndexAgentic coding — Artificial Analysis' overall score for coding agents, combining three coding benchmarks with what each run costs and how many tokens it burns. It rates a model paired with a particular agent harness rather than the model alone, so the same model scores differently in different tools. Higher is better. | — | 67 |
Database Migration Tasks (OpenAI Internal)Database migrations — OpenAI's own test of moving a database from one schema or system to another without breaking what depends on it — the migration work that has to be right the first time. Higher is better. | — | 63.9% |
BenchCADCAD programming — Can the AI do mechanical design as code? Given a drawing or a description of an industrial part — a gear, a spring, a drill bit — it has to write or edit the parametric CAD program that builds it, and the program is run to check the shape really comes out right. Higher is better. | — | 95.9% |
Frontier-Bench v0.1Agentic computer work — A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | 43.3% | — |
ExploitBenchCybersecurity — A 'capability ladder' for security research, built by CMU researchers: the AI is given known bugs in Chrome's V8 engine and scored on how far it gets toward a working exploit inside a research sandbox — from understanding the patch to triggering a crash. Higher is better. | — | 100% |
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. | 56.3% | — |
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. | 63.6% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 4 (v2)Advanced math — The rebuilt edition of FrontierMath's hardest tier — research-level maths of the kind professional mathematicians work on. It is a different question set from the first Tier 4, and scores on it run far higher, so read the two as separate tests rather than progress. Higher is better. | — | 97.6% |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 49.4% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 90.1% | — |
GeneBench-ProBiology — Real genomics and biomedical analyses done end to end: the AI gets a messy dataset and a question, and has to work through the chain of statistical decisions to a verifiable answer — the job a computational biologist does before a research or clinical decision gets made. Higher is better. | — | 39% |
MedChemBench (Internal)Chemistry — OpenAI's own drug-discovery test: reading chemical structures, predicting how potent or toxic a compound will be, choosing between candidate molecules, and planning a synthesis route — the everyday judgement calls of a medicinal chemist. Higher is better. | — | 49.7% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 96% |
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. | 74% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 59.3% |
SRE-BenchSite reliability — Can the AI keep production running? It is dropped into a broken Kubernetes system and has to diagnose the incident and fix it safely, the way an on-call site-reliability engineer would. Scored here on the best of four attempts. Higher is better. | — | 99.2% |
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Held-out)Agentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work, scored on a held-out set of tasks the model makers never see — making the numbers harder to game. Higher is better. | 11.7% | — |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 59.8% | — |
HealthBench Professional · length-adjustedHealth — The same physician-graded health conversations as HealthBench Professional, scored with an adjustment for how long the answer is — so a model cannot gain by padding its reply. The adjustment moves scores by several points, so these numbers are not interchangeable with the unadjusted ones. Higher is better. | — | 63.4% |
AA Intelligence IndexOverall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | — | 61.2 |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | 1708 | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1861 | — |
Design Tasks (OpenAI Internal)Design work — OpenAI's own set of professional design briefs, scored on whether the finished work is what a designer would have handed over. Higher is better. | — | 50% |
Data Science Tasks (OpenAI Internal)Data science — OpenAI's own set of data-science jobs — taking a dataset and a question through cleaning, analysis and a defensible answer. Higher is better. | — | 40.9% |
AA-BriefcaseKnowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | 1685 | — |
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. | 83.4% | — |
OpenScore String QuartetsSheet music — Can the AI read sheet music? It is shown scanned pages of string quartets and has to transcribe the notation — pitches, beams, accidentals and all — with the score measuring how close the transcription lands to the real thing. Runs 0 to 1, and higher is better. | — | 0.84 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Jul 24 2026 | Sep 3 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 5vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6 AstravsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Opus 5vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-6 AstravsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Opus 5vsGrok 4.7GPT-6 AstravsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-6 AstravsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Opus 5vsMistral Large 4GPT-6 AstravsMistral Large 4Claude Opus 5vsKimi K3GPT-6 AstravsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
GPT-6 Astra leads Claude Opus 5 on 9 of the 12 benchmarks they both report. Claude Opus 5 is cheaper on both input and output: $5.00 vs $10.00 per million input tokens, and $25.00 vs $50.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Claude Opus 5 shipped 41 days before GPT-6 Astra, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Opus 5) vs 1.05M (GPT-6 Astra).
On CheatBench, Claude Opus 5 leads at 45.3% vs GPT-6 Astra at 47.4%. On BullshitBench v2, Claude Opus 5 leads at 73% vs GPT-6 Astra at 69%. On DeepSWE 1.1, GPT-6 Astra leads at 74.1% vs Claude Opus 5 at 68.8%. On FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main split, GPT-6 Astra leads at 53.3% vs Claude Opus 5 at 48%. On Next.js Evals, Claude Opus 5 leads at 94% vs GPT-6 Astra at 90%. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, GPT-6 Astra leads at 57.9% vs Claude Opus 5 at 51.82%. On Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, GPT-6 Astra leads at 64.6% vs Claude Opus 5 at 29%. On BrowseComp, GPT-6 Astra leads at 91.5% vs Claude Opus 5 at 90.8%. On ARC-AGI-3, GPT-6 Astra leads at 99.9% vs Claude Opus 5 at 30.2%. On ARC-AGI-2, GPT-6 Astra leads at 95% vs Claude Opus 5 at 90.4%. On AutomationBench, GPT-6 Astra leads at 41.4% vs Claude Opus 5 at 26.9%. On threejseval, GPT-6 Astra leads at 1872 vs Claude Opus 5 at 1706.