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. | — | $1.50 |
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. | — | $7.50 |
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. | — | $0.075 |
| — | $675Google list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 12.5% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 28.9% | — |
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. | — | 51.4% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 51.5% | — |
SimpleQAKnowledge — accuracy on short, fact-seeking questions in the original SimpleQA set | 21.7% | — |
MMLU-ProKnowledge — accuracy on the ten-option MMLU-Pro benchmark | 71.6% | — |
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. | — | 77.6% |
AutomationBench (Artificial Analysis)Business workflows — The same business-workflow test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab, and graded strict pass@1: a workflow counts only if the whole of it is right on the first attempt. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run AutomationBench scores. Higher is better. | — | 76.1% |
Vending-Bench 2 (USD)Business simulation — ending bank balance in US dollars in Andon Labs’ vending-business simulation; higher is better | — | 14549 |
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. | — | 66.6% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | ||
| Release date | Feb 5 2025 | Nov 12 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 4 HydrogenvsClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 HydrogenvsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsMuse EmberGemini 4 HydrogenvsMuse EmberGemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 HydrogenvsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 HydrogenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Gemini 4 Hydrogen don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 4 Hydrogen has a verified first-party price for an available API: $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite shipped 645 days before Gemini 4 Hydrogen, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite) vs 1M (Gemini 4 Hydrogen).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Gemini 4 Hydrogen don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.