Compare AI models
| 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. | — | $1.75 |
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. | — | $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. | — | $0.175 |
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. | $0.02DeepInfra | $1.75Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.04DeepInfra | $14.00Azure |
| $6.00DeepInfra · fp8 | $1,050OpenAI list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 24% |
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. | — | 85% |
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. | — | 68% |
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. | — | 64.7% |
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. | — | 1171 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | OpenAI |
| Release date | Jul 23 2024 | Feb 5 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
LLaMA 3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5.3-CodexvsClaude Haiku 5.5LLaMA 3.1vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.3-CodexvsGemini 4 ArgonLLaMA 3.1vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.3-CodexvsGrok 4.7LLaMA 3.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-5.3-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashLLaMA 3.1vsMistral Large 4GPT-5.3-CodexvsMistral Large 4LLaMA 3.1vsKimi K3GPT-5.3-CodexvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.3-Codex leads LLaMA 3.1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only GPT-5.3-Codex has a verified first-party API price: $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for LLaMA 3.1. LLaMA 3.1 shipped 562 days before GPT-5.3-Codex, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
LLaMA 3.1 is open weight, while GPT-5.3-Codex is closed.
On BullshitBench v2, GPT-5.3-Codex leads at 24% vs LLaMA 3.1 at 14%.