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. | — | 21B |
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. | $1.50 | — |
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 | — |
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 | — |
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. | — | $0.018AkashML |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.03PrimeIntellect |
| $675Google list price | $5.50PrimeIntellect · fp4 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 60.7% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 10.9% |
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. | — | 17.3% |
AIME 2024Reasoning — single-answer accuracy on the 2024 invitational mathematics exam without tools | — | 92.1% |
AIME 2025Reasoning — single-answer accuracy on the 2025 invitational mathematics exam without tools | — | 91.7% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 71.5% |
MMMLUKnowledge — average accuracy on multilingual translations of MMLU | — | 75.7% |
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. | — | 85.3% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
HealthBench · full setHealthcare — physician rubric score on the full set of the original HealthBench evaluation | — | 42.5% |
HealthBench · hardHealthcare — physician rubric score on the hard subset of the original HealthBench evaluation | — | 10.8% |
HealthBench · consensusHealthcare — physician rubric score on the consensus subset of the original HealthBench evaluation | — | 82.6% |
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% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Nov 12 2026 | Aug 5 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 HydrogenvsClaude Fable 5.2gpt-oss-20bvsClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMuse Embergpt-oss-20bvsMuse EmberGemini 4 HydrogenvsGrok 4.7gpt-oss-20bvsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 HydrogenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017gpt-oss-20bvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 HydrogenvsMistral Large 4gpt-oss-20bvsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 HydrogenvsKimi K3.1 Progpt-oss-20bvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Hydrogen and gpt-oss-20b don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 4 Hydrogen has a verified first-party price for an available API: $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for gpt-oss-20b. gpt-oss-20b shipped 464 days before Gemini 4 Hydrogen, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 4 Hydrogen) vs 128k (gpt-oss-20b). Gemini 4 Hydrogen is closed, while gpt-oss-20b is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 4 Hydrogen and gpt-oss-20b don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.