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 | 400k |
| 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. | — | $0.05 |
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. | — | $0.40 |
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. | — | $0.005 |
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. | — | $0.025OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.20OpenAI |
| — | $30.00OpenAI 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. | 48% | — |
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. | 76.2% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 52% | — |
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. | 31.1% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 91.9% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 81% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Nov 18 2025 | Aug 7 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.0 ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5 nanovsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.0 ProvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5 nanovsMuse Spark OpenGemini 3.0 ProvsGrok 4.7GPT-5 nanovsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.0 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5 nanovsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.0 ProvsMistral Large 4GPT-5 nanovsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.0 ProvsKimi K3GPT-5 nanovsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.0 Pro and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5 nano has a verified first-party API price: $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.0 Pro. GPT-5 nano shipped 103 days before Gemini 3.0 Pro, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.0 Pro) vs 400k (GPT-5 nano).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 3.0 Pro and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.