Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 8k | 1.05M |
| 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. | $30.00 | $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. | $60.00 | $10.00 |
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. | — | $0.10 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $30.00Azure | $1.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $60.00Azure | $5.00OpenAI |
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. | — | 65% |
Auto-review circumvention (Internal)Safety-review circumvention — OpenAI's internal safety check on how often a model finds ways around its own automated review — the guardrail that inspects what it is about to do. This one counts failures, so lower is better and zero is the goal. | — | 0% |
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. | — | 75.2% |
HumanEvalFunction synthesis — 164 small Python problems: the AI is given a function's description and has to write the working function. This was the coding benchmark of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 era, before the field moved to fixing real bugs in real repositories. Higher is better. | 67% | — |
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. | — | 57.1% |
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. | 86.4% | — |
GSM8KGrade-school math — Grade-school maths word problems that take a few steps of arithmetic to work through. It separated the models of 2022 and 2023 sharply, then saturated. One caveat on the historical numbers: OpenAI included part of the GSM8K training set in GPT-4's pre-training mix, so GPT-4's score is not a clean few-shot result. Higher is better. | 92% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | — | 71.4% |
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. | — | 36.2% |
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. | — | 32% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Release date | Mar 14 2023 | Sep 29 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-4vsClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-6.1 SolvsClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-4vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 SolvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-4vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-6.1 SolvsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-4vsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 SolvsGrok 4.7GPT-4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-6.1 SolvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-4vsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-6.1 SolvsMistral Medium 3.5Frequently asked questions
GPT-4 and GPT-6.1 Sol don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper on both input and output: $2.00 vs $30.00 per million input tokens, and $10.00 vs $60.00 per million output tokens. GPT-4 shipped 1295 days before GPT-6.1 Sol, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 8k (GPT-4) vs 1.05M (GPT-6.1 Sol).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-4 and GPT-6.1 Sol don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.