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 | 400k |
| 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. | $1.50 | $1.75 |
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. | $7.50 | $14.00 |
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. | $0.075 | $0.175 |
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. | — | $0.875OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $7.00OpenAI |
| $675Google list price | $1,050OpenAI 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. | — | 38% |
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. | — | 55.6% |
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. | — | 80% |
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. | 51.4% | — |
MCP Atlas · original harnessMulti-step tool use — pass rate under the original tool-use harness, before Scale changed the judge and retry handling in April 2026 | — | 60.6% |
τ²-bench · retailAgentic tasks — task success in the retail domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 82% |
τ²-bench · telecom, adjusted promptAgentic tasks — telecom task success with an extra general instruction in the system prompt | — | 98.7% |
ToolathlonGeneral tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | — | 46.3% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 65.8% |
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. | — | 34.5% |
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. | — | 45.5% |
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. | — | 52.9% |
FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | — | 40.3% |
FrontierMath · Tier 4Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | — | 14.6% |
ARC-AGI-1Reasoning — accuracy on the first edition of the abstract grid reasoning benchmark | — | 86.2% |
AIME 2025Reasoning — single-answer accuracy on the 2025 invitational mathematics exam without tools | — | 100% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 92.4% |
MMMLUKnowledge — average accuracy on multilingual translations of MMLU | — | 89.6% |
OSWorld 2.1 · offlineAgentic 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. | 77.6% | — |
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. | — | 47.3% |
AutomationBench (Artificial Analysis)Business workflows — The same business-workflow test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab, and graded strict pass@1: a workflow counts only if the whole of it is right on the first attempt. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run AutomationBench scores. Higher is better. | 76.1% | — |
Vending-Bench 2 (USD)Business simulation — ending bank balance in US dollars in Andon Labs’ vending-business simulation; higher is better | 14549 | — |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | — | 70.9% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 82.1% |
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | — | 88.7% |
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. | 66.6% | — |
MMMU-Pro · with toolsMultimodal reasoning — multimodal understanding and reasoning with access to tools | — | 80.4% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 79.5% |
GraphWalks BFS (<128K)Long context — breadth-first traversal accuracy for inputs shorter than 128K tokens | — | 94% |
GraphWalks parents (<128K)Long context — parent-node retrieval accuracy for inputs shorter than 128K tokens | — | 89% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Nov 12 2026 | Dec 11 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 HydrogenvsClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5.2vsClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMuse EmberGPT-5.2vsMuse EmberGemini 4 HydrogenvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.2vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 HydrogenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.2vsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 HydrogenvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Hydrogen and GPT-5.2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper on both input and output: $1.50 vs $1.75 per million input tokens, and $7.50 vs $14.00 per million output tokens. GPT-5.2 shipped 336 days before Gemini 4 Hydrogen, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 4 Hydrogen) vs 400k (GPT-5.2).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 4 Hydrogen and GPT-5.2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.