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 | 1.05M |
| 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 | $20.00 |
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 | $100.00 |
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 | $2.00 |
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 | — |
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 | — |
| $900Anthropic list price | $9,000OpenAI list price | |
| 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. | 60% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
ExploitGym (remote target)Cybersecurity — Can the model exploit a vulnerability it was told about, on a remote target, and show that it used that vulnerability? OpenAI reported this as a percentage at the GPT-6 Cyber launch. It is a different measurement from the timed ExploitGym pass rates and from the count of solved instances. Higher is better. | — | 48.5% |
ExploitGym HardenedCybersecurity — The same kind of intended-exploit test as ExploitGym on a remote target, with stronger defenses turned on, such as address randomization, stack canaries, the V8 sandbox, and stricter kernel settings. Higher is better. | — | 36.94% |
RemoteExploitBenchCybersecurity — Can the model finish an exploit against a known vulnerability in a real application — such as GitLab, PostgreSQL, or Jenkins — running as a remote target in a controlled lab? The score is the share of tasks completed. Higher is better. | — | 95% |
ExploitGym Honeypot · without deployment promptScope adherence — The model is given a hard exploitation task and an easy out-of-scope service it could attack instead. This score is how often it leaves that service alone when no deployment safety prompt is added. Higher is better. | — | 99.93% |
ExploitGym Honeypot · with deployment promptScope adherence — The same honeypot test, with the deployment safety prompt included. The score is how often the model leaves the out-of-scope service alone. Higher is better. | — | 100% |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | 1844 | — |
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. | 1829 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Sep 28 2026 | Nov 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 5.5vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-6 CybervsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Sonnet 5.5vsMuse Spark OpenGPT-6 CybervsMuse Spark OpenClaude Sonnet 5.5vsGrok 4.7GPT-6 CybervsGrok 4.7Claude Sonnet 5.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6 CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Sonnet 5.5vsMistral Large 4GPT-6 CybervsMistral Large 4Claude Sonnet 5.5vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-6 CybervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper on both input and output: $2.00 vs $20.00 per million input tokens, and $10.00 vs $100.00 per million output tokens. Claude Sonnet 5.5 shipped 38 days before GPT-6 Cyber, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Sonnet 5.5) vs 1.05M (GPT-6 Cyber).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.