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. | — | 480B |
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. | 400k | 256k |
| 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. | $0.25 | $1.00 |
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. | $2.00 | $5.00 |
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. | $0.025 | — |
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. | $0.125OpenAI | $0.22Google |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.00OpenAI | $1.00DeepInfra |
| $150OpenAI list price | $110DeepInfra · turbo · fp4 | |
| 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. | — | 20% |
ProgramBenchProgram reconstruction — The AI receives a working program and its documentation, then builds a replacement from scratch without the original source code, internet access or decompilation. The score is the percentage of 200 programs that pass every behavioral test. We record each model's best published mini-SWE-agent result, including higher reasoning efforts where available. Partial test-pass rates and almost-solved programs do not count toward this score. Equal scores share a rank here; the official board also uses partial progress to break ties. Higher is better. | 0% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 7 2025 | Jul 22 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-5 minivsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3-CodervsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5 minivsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3-CodervsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5 minivsMuse Spark OpenQwen3-CodervsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5 minivsGrok 4.7Qwen3-CodervsGrok 4.7GPT-5 minivsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3-CodervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5 minivsMistral Large 4Qwen3-CodervsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-5 mini and Qwen3-Coder don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GPT-5 mini is cheaper on both input and output: $0.25 vs $1.00 per million input tokens, and $2.00 vs $5.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Qwen3-Coder shipped 16 days before GPT-5 mini, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 400k (GPT-5 mini) vs 256k (Qwen3-Coder). GPT-5 mini is closed, while Qwen3-Coder is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-5 mini and Qwen3-Coder don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.