Compare AI models
| 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 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. | $3.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $15.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
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. | 79% | — |
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% | — |
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. | 39% | — |
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% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Sep 29 2025 | Mar 29 2024 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4.5vsGPT-6.1 SolGrok‑1.5vsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Sonnet 4.5vsGemini 4 ArgonGrok‑1.5vsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Sonnet 4.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Grok‑1.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Sonnet 4.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGrok‑1.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Sonnet 4.5vsMistral Large 4Grok‑1.5vsMistral Large 4Claude Sonnet 4.5vsKimi K3Grok‑1.5vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Grok‑1.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Claude Sonnet 4.5 has a verified first-party API price: $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Grok‑1.5. Grok‑1.5 shipped 549 days before Claude Sonnet 4.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Grok‑1.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.