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 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. | $1.75Azure | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $14.00Azure | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 58% |
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. | 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% | — |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 73.7% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 61.7% |
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% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Feb 5 2026 | Mar 19 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.3-CodexvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Composer 2vsClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-5.3-CodexvsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.3-CodexvsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-5.3-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-5.3-CodexvsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2vsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-5.3-CodexvsKimi K3Composer 2vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.3-Codex leads Composer 2 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Next.js Evals). 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 Composer 2. GPT-5.3-Codex shipped 42 days before Composer 2, 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 Next.js Evals, GPT-5.3-Codex leads at 68% vs Composer 2 at 58%.