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 | 200k |
| 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. | — | $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. | — | $8.00 |
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. | — | $0.50 |
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. | — | $2.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $8.00OpenAI |
| — | $800OpenAI list price | |
| 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. | 48% | 26% |
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% | — |
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 | Apr 16 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.0 ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5o3vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.0 ProvsMuse Spark Openo3vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 3.0 ProvsGrok 4.7o3vsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.0 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017o3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.0 ProvsMistral Large 4o3vsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.0 ProvsKimi K3.1 Proo3vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 3.0 Pro leads o3 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only o3 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $2.00 per million input tokens and $8.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.0 Pro. o3 shipped 216 days before Gemini 3.0 Pro, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.0 Pro) vs 200k (o3).
On BullshitBench v2, Gemini 3.0 Pro leads at 48% vs o3 at 26%.