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 | 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. | $3.00 | — |
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. | $15.00 | — |
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. | $0.30 | — |
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. | $3.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $15.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
| $1,350Anthropic list price | — | |
| 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. | 79% | 45% |
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. | 36% | 46% |
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. | 77.2% | — |
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. | 51% | — |
MCP Atlas · original harnessMulti-step tool use — pass rate under the original tool-use harness, before Scale changed the judge and retry handling in April 2026 | 43.8% | — |
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. | 17.7% | — |
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. | 33.6% | — |
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. | 13.6% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.4% | — |
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. | 61.4% | — |
GDPval-AAKnowledge work — Measures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1276 | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 63.4% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 77.8% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Sep 29 2025 | Dec 18 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4.5vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.2-CodexvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Sonnet 4.5vsMuse EmberGPT-5.2-CodexvsMuse EmberClaude Sonnet 4.5vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.2-CodexvsGrok 4.7Claude Sonnet 4.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.2-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Sonnet 4.5vsMistral Large 4GPT-5.2-CodexvsMistral Large 4Claude Sonnet 4.5vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.2-CodexvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT-5.2-Codex are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, Next.js Evals). Only Claude Sonnet 4.5 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for GPT-5.2-Codex. Claude Sonnet 4.5 shipped 80 days before GPT-5.2-Codex, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude Sonnet 4.5) vs 400k (GPT-5.2-Codex).
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads at 79% vs GPT-5.2-Codex at 45%. On Next.js Evals, GPT-5.2-Codex leads at 46% vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 at 36%.