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. | $30.00 | — |
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. | $180.00 | — |
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. | $15.00OpenAI | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $90.00OpenAI | — |
| 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. | 65% | 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. | 36% | — |
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% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 90.1% | — |
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. | 57.2% | — |
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. | 84.2% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | 52.4% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 4Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | 39.6% | — |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | 82.3% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Apr 23 2026 | Mar 19 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.5-ProvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Composer 2vsClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-5.5-ProvsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.5-ProvsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-5.5-ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-5.5-ProvsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2vsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-5.5-ProvsKimi K3Composer 2vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.5-Pro leads Composer 2 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Next.js Evals). Only GPT-5.5-Pro has a verified first-party API price: $30.00 per million input tokens and $180.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Composer 2. Composer 2 shipped 35 days before GPT-5.5-Pro, 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-5.5-Pro leads at 65% vs Composer 2 at 58%.