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 | $0.20 |
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 | $1.25 |
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 | $0.02 |
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. | — | $0.10OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.625OpenAI |
| $675Google list price | $103OpenAI 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. | — | 14% |
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. | — | 52.4% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 46.3% |
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 | — | 56.1% |
ToolathlonGeneral tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | — | 35.5% |
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. | — | 24.3% |
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. | — | 37.7% |
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. | — | 5.7% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 82.8% |
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. | — | 39% |
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 | — |
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 | — | 69.5% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 66.1% |
GraphWalks BFS (<128K)Long context — breadth-first traversal accuracy for inputs shorter than 128K tokens | — | 73.4% |
GraphWalks parents (<128K)Long context — parent-node retrieval accuracy for inputs shorter than 128K tokens | — | 50.8% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Nov 12 2026 | Mar 17 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 HydrogenvsClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5.4 nanovsClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMuse EmberGPT-5.4 nanovsMuse EmberGemini 4 HydrogenvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.4 nanovsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 HydrogenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.4 nanovsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.4 nanovsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 HydrogenvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.4 nanovsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Hydrogen and GPT-5.4 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper on both input and output: $0.20 vs $1.50 per million input tokens, and $1.25 vs $7.50 per million output tokens. GPT-5.4 nano shipped 240 days before Gemini 4 Hydrogen, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 4 Hydrogen) vs 400k (GPT-5.4 nano).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 4 Hydrogen and GPT-5.4 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.