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. | — | 35B |
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 | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.20 | $0.375 |
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. | $1.25 | $2.25 |
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. | $0.02 | — |
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. | $0.10OpenAI | $0.05Darkbloom |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.625OpenAI | $0.70Darkbloom |
| $103OpenAI list price | $45.00Darkbloom · 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. | 14% | — |
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. | — | 49.5% |
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. | — | 73.4% |
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. | — | 67.2% |
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. | — | 51.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 21.4% |
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. | 37.7% | — |
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. | 5.7% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 86% |
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. | 39% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 78% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 75.3% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 81.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Mar 17 2026 | Apr 16 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.4 nanovsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3.6vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5.4 nanovsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.6vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.4 nanovsMuse Spark OpenQwen3.6vsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5.4 nanovsGrok 4.7Qwen3.6vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.4 nanovsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3.6vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.4 nanovsMistral Large 4Qwen3.6vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.4 nano and Qwen3.6 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper on both input and output: $0.20 vs $0.375 per million input tokens, and $1.25 vs $2.25 per million output tokens. GPT-5.4 nano shipped 30 days before Qwen3.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 400k (GPT-5.4 nano) vs 256k (Qwen3.6). GPT-5.4 nano is closed, while Qwen3.6 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-5.4 nano and Qwen3.6 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.