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. | $2.00 | $0.75 |
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 | $3.75 |
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 | $0.075 |
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. | $2.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.375Google |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $10.00Amazon Bedrock | $1.875Google |
| 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% | 39% |
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. | — | 7.3% |
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. | — | 32.2% |
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. | — | 37.3% |
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. | — | 0.5% |
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. | — | 49% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 63.9% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 68% |
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. | — | 60.4% |
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. | — | 83% |
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) | — | 1421 |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1811 | — |
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% | — |
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. | — | 1348 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Sep 28 2026 | Jul 21 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 5.5vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.6 FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Sonnet 5.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Sonnet 5.5vsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGrok 4.7Claude Sonnet 5.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 3.6 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Sonnet 5.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Sonnet 5.5vsKimi K3Gemini 3.6 FlashvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads Gemini 3.6 Flash on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper on both input and output: $0.75 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $3.75 vs $10.00 per million output tokens. Gemini 3.6 Flash shipped 69 days before Claude Sonnet 5.5, 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.
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads at 60% vs Gemini 3.6 Flash at 39%.