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. | — | 1.05M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $1.25 | $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 | $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. | $0.125 | $0.10 |
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. | $0.625Google AI Studio | $1.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00Google AI Studio | $5.00OpenAI |
| 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. | 20% | 65% |
Auto-review circumvention (Internal)Safety-review circumvention — OpenAI's internal safety check on how often a model finds ways around its own automated review — the guardrail that inspects what it is about to do. This one counts failures, so lower is better and zero is the goal. | — | 0% |
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. | 59.6% | — |
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. | — | 75.2% |
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. | — | 57.1% |
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. | 18.8% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 86.4% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | — | 71.4% |
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. | — | 36.2% |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 32% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Mar 25 2025 | Sep 29 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 ProvsClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-6.1 SolvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 2.5 ProvsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-6.1 SolvsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 2.5 ProvsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 SolvsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-6.1 SolvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 2.5 ProvsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-6.1 SolvsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 2.5 ProvsKimi K3GPT-6.1 SolvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
GPT-6.1 Sol leads Gemini 2.5 Pro on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper on input: $1.25 vs $2.00 per million tokens. Both charge $10.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Gemini 2.5 Pro shipped 553 days before GPT-6.1 Sol, 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, GPT-6.1 Sol leads at 65% vs Gemini 2.5 Pro at 20%.