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. | — | 500k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
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. | — | $6.00 |
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. | — | $2.00xAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $6.00xAI |
| — | $700SpaceXSI list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
FrontierSWE V2Ultra-long-horizon coding — Engineering problems that would occupy a person for days: systems implementation, performance work, scientific computing and AI research, with up to twenty hours per task. Partial credit is awarded, because finishing one outright is still rare. Higher is better. | 61.2% | 29% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 65.2% | 38% |
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | — | 78% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 0% | — |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 46.3% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 71% |
SWE-sweepAgentic coding — subtask-weighted reward for software engineering with the mini-swe-agent harness | 9.6% | — |
SWE-Marathon v1.1Multi-hour coding — Twenty multi-hour programming jobs — rebuilding a library, cloning a product, training a model, making something faster. A run counts only when every check passes, hidden tests and interface review included. Higher is better. | — | 46% |
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. | — | 94% |
Supabase Evals · with skillsSupabase coding — Supabase's own open benchmark: a coding agent is dropped into a real Supabase project and asked to do real work — set up a schema, fix a broken security policy, debug an Edge Function — and every run is checked against a live Supabase stack. This is the headline number, where the agent has Supabase's own skills loaded, as most people building on Supabase would. The score is the share of scenarios it got right. Higher is better. | — | 89.9% |
Supabase Evals · no skillsSupabase coding — The same Supabase scenarios, but with none of Supabase's skills loaded — so it measures what the model already knows about building on Supabase, rather than how well it follows Supabase's supplied instructions. Higher is better. | — | 78.3% |
CADGenBenchCAD generation — Can the AI turn a written design brief into a real CAD model? What it produces has to run as a program and come out the right shape. Higher is better. | — | 44.4% |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 64.8% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 80.3% |
CVE-BenchCybersecurity — Can the AI exploit real, publicly known security holes in web applications, in a sandbox built to resemble a live service? A measure of raw capability: it is run without the safeguards a deployed model carries. Higher is better. | — | 37.7% |
CathedralBenchCybersecurity — An outside red team's test: chaining several exploits together to get through a hardened system, scored on the hardest tasks only and run without safeguards, to show what the underlying model can do. Higher is better. | — | 29% |
RiemannBenchAdvanced mathematics — mathematical problem-solving evaluation published by Surge | 80% | — |
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. | — | 61.39% |
LatchBio Capabilities v1.0Biology — Can the AI do a working biologist's analysis — opening real experimental files and reaching a defensible conclusion across genomics, drug discovery and pathogen surveillance? Averaged over eleven separate tests. Higher is better. | — | 44.5% |
EEBenchElectrical engineering — Can the AI design electronics? It is asked for circuits and chip layouts, and the designs are checked for whether they would physically work — not whether the answer reads well. Higher is better. | — | 66% |
Agents’ Last Exam v1.1Agentic computer use — averaged rubric score on the 122-task October 17, 2026 v1.1 set, using ALE-Claw with a five-hour limit; separate from earlier ALE scores | 77.4% | — |
CWE-bench v1Security patching — Collinear AI’s programmatically graded security-patch pass@1 rate; separate from exploit-generation benchmarks | 71% | — |
ExploitGym (causal pass rate) · 10-hour budgetCybersecurity — share of tasks producing a verified exploit of the intended vulnerability, with mitigations off; not a count of solved instances | 54.8% | — |
ExploitGym (causal pass rate) · 6-hour budgetCybersecurity — share of tasks producing a verified exploit of the intended vulnerability, with mitigations off; not a count of solved instances | 53.5% | — |
SEC-bench Pro (JavaScript)Vulnerability discovery — pass@1 on the 183-task May 2026 JavaScript-engine split, averaged over three trials with the Antigravity harness | 88.2% | — |
OSWorld 2.1 (offline)Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | 81.5% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 53.9% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | — | 19.6% |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | — | 56.7% |
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Overall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index, version 5.0 with tools; separate from earlier index editions | 59 | — |
Vals Index v2.2Professional work — Vals AI composite evaluation of professional tasks, version 2.2 | 70.4% | — |
Vending-Bench 2 (USD)Business simulation — ending bank balance in US dollars in Andon Labs’ vending-business simulation; higher is better | 16484 | — |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | — | 1695 |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | — | 1657 |
Chartography · no toolsChart tasks — The same chart-centred test with no tools: the AI has to read each chart unaided. Scores run far lower than the with-tools version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | 72.5% | — |
Blueprint-Bench 2Spatial reasoning — Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 58.6% | — |
GraphWalks BFS (256K–1M)Long context — breadth-first search F1 on the 200 GraphWalks problems with 256K to 1M tokens of context | 96.2% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1618 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | SpaceXSI | |
| Release date | Oct 28 2026 | Sep 21 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 CarbonvsClaude Haiku 5.5Grok 4.7vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 4 CarbonvsGPT-6.1 TerraGrok 4.7vsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 CarbonvsMuse Spark OpenGrok 4.7vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 4 CarbonvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Grok 4.7vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 CarbonvsMistral Large 4Grok 4.7vsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 CarbonvsKimi K3.1 ProGrok 4.7vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Carbon leads Grok 4.7 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (FrontierSWE V2, Terminal-Bench 4.0). Only Grok 4.7 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $2.00 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 4 Carbon. Grok 4.7 shipped 37 days before Gemini 4 Carbon, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On FrontierSWE V2, Gemini 4 Carbon leads at 61.2% vs Grok 4.7 at 29%. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, Gemini 4 Carbon leads at 65.2% vs Grok 4.7 at 38%.