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. | $0.30 | $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. | $2.50 | $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. | $0.03 | $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. | $0.15Google AI Studio | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.25Google AI Studio | — |
| $185Google 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. | 19% | — |
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% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Apr 17 2025 | Nov 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 FlashvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-6 CybervsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.5 FlashvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-6 CybervsMuse Spark OpenGemini 2.5 FlashvsGrok 4.7GPT-6 CybervsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6 CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.5 FlashvsMistral Large 4GPT-6 CybervsMistral Large 4Gemini 2.5 FlashvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-6 CybervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on both input and output: $0.30 vs $20.00 per million input tokens, and $2.50 vs $100.00 per million output tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash shipped 567 days before GPT-6 Cyber, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 2.5 Flash) vs 1.05M (GPT-6 Cyber).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.