Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | — | 117B |
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 | 128k |
| 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 | — |
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 | — |
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 | — |
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 | $0.03AkashML |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.25Google | $0.15Near AI |
| $185Google list price | $13.50Venice · int4 | |
| 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. | 66% | 12% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 54.2% | — |
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. | — | 62.4% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 54% | — |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 49% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 14.9% |
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. | — | 19% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 80.1% |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | — | 90% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 74% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1140 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Jul 21 2026 | Aug 5 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsClaude Haiku 5.5gpt-oss-120bvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark Opengpt-oss-120bvsMuse Spark OpenGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7gpt-oss-120bvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017gpt-oss-120bvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4gpt-oss-120bvsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsKimi K3gpt-oss-120bvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads gpt-oss-120b on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for gpt-oss-120b. gpt-oss-120b shipped 350 days before Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite) vs 128k (gpt-oss-120b). Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is closed, while gpt-oss-120b is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads at 66% vs gpt-oss-120b at 12%.