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. | 1M | 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. | $2.00 | — |
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. | $10.00 | — |
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. | $0.10 | — |
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. | $2.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.75Google |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $10.00Amazon Bedrock | $4.50Google |
| $900Anthropic list price | $750Google AI Studio | |
| 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. | 60% | 20% |
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. | 81.3% | 55.1% |
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. | 56.9% | 40.2% |
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. | — | 14.1% |
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. | — | 54.2% |
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. | — | 60.5% |
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. | — | 0% |
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. | 90.3% | — |
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. | 54.3% | — |
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. | 55.5% | — |
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. | — | 37% |
FrontierSWE V2Ultra-long-horizon coding — Engineering problems that would occupy a person for days: systems implementation, performance work, scientific computing and AI research, with up to twenty hours per task. Partial credit is awarded, because finishing one outright is still rare. Higher is better. | 61.9% | — |
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. | 52.1% | — |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) · extended splitAgentic coding — frontier-difficulty agentic coding tasks (v1.1, extended split) | 64.4% | — |
MLE-BenchML engineering — Can the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | — | 49.7% |
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. | 70.6% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 76.2% |
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. | 59.9% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 83.6% |
ToolathlonGeneral tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | — | 56.5% |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | — | 58% |
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. | 64.5% | — |
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. | — | 72.1% |
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. | 44.7% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 89.2% | — |
OSWorld 2.1 · full setAgentic computer use — An agent operates a desktop across 108 tasks. Each completed checkpoint earns part of the task’s credit, so a model can score even when it only finishes part of a task. | 80.1% | — |
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. | 83.9% | — |
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. | — | 78.4% |
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. | 44.7% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | — | 57.9% |
HealthBench Professional · rawHealth — physician-graded conversations, scored before adjustment for answer length | 77.1% | — |
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. | 69.2% | — |
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. | — | 1656 |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | 1844 | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1349 |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1811 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 84.2% |
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | — | 84.9% |
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. | 90.2% | — |
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. | 61.6% | — |
OfficeQA Pro · extracted textDocument Q&A — answering the 133 Treasury document questions with extracted text and code execution available | 65.6% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 83.6% |
Blueprint-Bench 2Spatial reasoning — Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | — | 33.6% |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | — | 77.3% |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | — | 26.6% |
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. | 1829 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Sep 28 2026 | May 19 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 5.5vsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 3.5 FlashvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Sonnet 5.5vsMuse EmberGemini 3.5 FlashvsMuse EmberClaude Sonnet 5.5vsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashvsGrok 4.7Claude Sonnet 5.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.5 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Sonnet 5.5vsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.5 FlashvsMistral Large 4Claude Sonnet 5.5vsKimi K3.1 ProGemini 3.5 FlashvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads Gemini 3.5 Flash on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, SWE-Bench Pro, Humanity's Last Exam). Only Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.5 Flash. Gemini 3.5 Flash shipped 132 days before Claude Sonnet 5.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Sonnet 5.5) vs 1M (Gemini 3.5 Flash).
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads at 60% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 20%. On SWE-Bench Pro, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads at 81.3% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 55.1%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads at 56.9% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 40.2%.