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 | 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 | $15.00 |
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. | $2.50 | $60.00 |
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. | $0.03 | $7.50 |
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. | $0.15Google | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.25Google | — |
| $185Google list price | $6,000OpenAI 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. | 66% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 73.3% |
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 | Sep 12 2024 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsClaude Haiku 5.5o1-previewvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark Openo1-previewvsMuse Spark OpenGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7o1-previewvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017o1-previewvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4o1-previewvsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsKimi K3o1-previewvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and o1-preview don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper on both input and output: $0.30 vs $15.00 per million input tokens, and $2.50 vs $60.00 per million output tokens. o1-preview shipped 677 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 (o1-preview).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and o1-preview don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.