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. | 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. | $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. | $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 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. | $1.00OpenAI | $1.10OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00OpenAI | $4.40OpenAI |
| $900OpenAI list price | $440OpenAI | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | 49.3% | — |
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% | — |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 58.18% | — |
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% | — |
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. | 94.17% | — |
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% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | 1983 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Release date | Sep 29 2026 | Jan 31 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-6.1 SolvsClaude Haiku 5.5o3-mini-highvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-6.1 SolvsGemini 4 Argono3-mini-highvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 SolvsMuse Spark Openo3-mini-highvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-6.1 SolvsGrok 4.7o3-mini-highvsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 SolvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017o3-mini-highvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6.1 SolvsMistral Large 4o3-mini-highvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-6.1 Sol and o3-mini-high don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a verified first-party API price: $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for o3-mini-high. o3-mini-high shipped 606 days before GPT-6.1 Sol, 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.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-6.1 Sol and o3-mini-high don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.