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. | — | 1.05M |
| 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. | — | $12.00 |
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. | — | $0.20 |
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. | — | $1.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $6.00OpenAI |
| — | $1,000OpenAI list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt 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. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 2.9% | 5.4% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt 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 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 14.3% | 26% |
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. | 16.5% | 30.4% |
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% | 63.4% |
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. | 10% | 69.6% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 67.3% | 87.4% |
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. | 42.5% | 83.9% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.5% | 92.9% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 80.4% | 80.7% |
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. | — | 54% |
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. | 77.4% | — |
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. | — | 41.3% |
BenchCAD · without toolsCAD programming — geometric overlap of generated CAD parts without tool access | — | 62.3% |
BenchCAD · with toolsCAD programming — geometric overlap of generated CAD parts with tool access | — | 78.2% |
Frontier-Bench v0.1Agentic computer work — A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | — | 20.8% |
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. | — | 21.52% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 82.2% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 17% | — |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 49.4% | — |
ToolathlonGeneral tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | — | 53.1% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 87.5% |
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. | 50.4% | — |
ARC-AGI-3Novel problem-solving — The third generation of the ARC-AGI series: instead of static puzzles, the AI is dropped into small interactive game-like environments it has never seen and has to figure out the rules and solve them on its own. Higher is better. | — | 0.8% |
FrontierMath · Tier 4 (v2)Advanced math — The rebuilt edition of FrontierMath's hardest tier — research-level maths of the kind professional mathematicians work on. It is a different question set from the first Tier 4, and scores on it run far higher, so read the two as separate tests rather than progress. Higher is better. | — | 68.3% |
GeneBench-ProBiology — Real genomics and biomedical analyses done end to end: the AI gets a messy dataset and a question, and has to work through the chain of statistical decisions to a verifiable answer — the job a computational biologist does before a research or clinical decision gets made. Higher is better. | — | 23.3% |
MedChemBench (Internal)Chemistry — OpenAI's own drug-discovery test: reading chemical structures, predicting how potent or toxic a compound will be, choosing between candidate molecules, and planning a synthesis route — the everyday judgement calls of a medicinal chemist. Higher is better. | — | 35% |
LifeSciBenchReasoning — performance on research tasks graded by life sciences experts | — | 56% |
FrontierMath · Tiers 1–3 (v2)Reasoning — research mathematics on the rebuilt second edition of tiers 1–3 | — | 84.9% |
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. | 53.3% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 50.4% |
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. | — | 15.2% |
HealthBench Professional · OpenAI grading, length-adjustedHealth — official OpenAI grading with the response-length penalty applied | — | 57.7% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.9% | — |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 24.7% |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | 39.9% | — |
MMMU-Pro · with toolsMultimodal reasoning — multimodal understanding and reasoning with access to tools | — | 82% |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 256K–512KLong context — mean match ratio for eight needles within the indicated context band | — | 89.6% |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 512K–1MLong context — mean match ratio for eight needles within the indicated context band | — | 72.5% |
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. | — | 1429 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | OpenAI |
| Release date | Apr 8 2026 | Jun 26 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse SparkvsClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5.6 TerravsClaude Fable 5.2Muse SparkvsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.6 TerravsGemini 4 CarbonMuse SparkvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.6 TerravsGrok 4.7Muse SparkvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.6 TerravsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse SparkvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.6 TerravsMistral Large 4Muse SparkvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.6 TerravsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
GPT-5.6 Terra leads Muse Spark on 6 of the 9 benchmarks they both report. Only GPT-5.6 Terra has a verified first-party price for an available API: $2.00 per million input tokens and $12.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark. Muse Spark shipped 79 days before GPT-5.6 Terra, 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 Gray Swan IPI · k = 1, Muse Spark leads at 2.9% vs GPT-5.6 Terra at 5.4%. On Gray Swan IPI · k = 10, Muse Spark leads at 14.3% vs GPT-5.6 Terra at 26%. On Gray Swan IPI · k = 15, Muse Spark leads at 16.5% vs GPT-5.6 Terra at 30.4%. On SWE-Bench Pro, GPT-5.6 Terra leads at 63.4% vs Muse Spark at 55%. On DeepSWE 1.1, GPT-5.6 Terra leads at 69.6% vs Muse Spark at 10%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, GPT-5.6 Terra leads at 87.4% vs Muse Spark at 67.3%. On ARC-AGI-2, GPT-5.6 Terra leads at 83.9% vs Muse Spark at 42.5%. On GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.6 Terra leads at 92.9% vs Muse Spark at 89.5%. On MMMU-Pro, GPT-5.6 Terra leads at 80.7% vs Muse Spark at 80.4%.