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. | — | $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. | — | $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. | — | $2.00 |
| — | $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. | 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. | 50% | — |
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% | — |
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% |
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 | Nov 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.0 ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-6 CybervsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.0 ProvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-6 CybervsMuse Spark OpenGemini 3.0 ProvsGrok 4.7GPT-6 CybervsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.0 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6 CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.0 ProvsMistral Large 4GPT-6 CybervsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.0 ProvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-6 CybervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 3.0 Pro and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-6 Cyber has a verified first-party price for an available API: $20.00 per million input tokens and $100.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.0 Pro. Gemini 3.0 Pro shipped 352 days before GPT-6 Cyber, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.0 Pro) vs 1.05M (GPT-6 Cyber).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 3.0 Pro and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.