Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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. | 1.05M | 200k |
| 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. | $1.00 | $0.60 |
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. | $5.00 | $2.20 |
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. | $0.05 | $0.11 |
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. | — | $0.32DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.40DeepInfra |
| $450OpenAI list price | $168DeepInfra · fp4 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
OpenAI Factuality (Internal)Factual error rate — OpenAI's internal test uses prompts designed to provoke factual mistakes. The score is the percentage of answers containing at least one factual error, at the model's best published reasoning effort. It is not the percentage of individual claims that are wrong or an error rate for everyday use. Lower is better. | 4.3% | — |
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. | — | 73.8% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 84.9% |
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. | 50.3% | — |
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. | — | 41% |
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. | 58.3% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 52% |
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. | — | 24.8% |
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. | — | 42.8% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 85.7% |
OSWorld 2.1 (offline)Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | 74.2% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 60% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 85.5% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | Oct 26 2026 | Dec 22 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-6.1 TerravsClaude Haiku 5.5GLM-4.7vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-6.1 TerravsGemini 4 ArgonGLM-4.7vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 TerravsMuse Spark OpenGLM-4.7vsMuse Spark OpenGPT-6.1 TerravsGrok 4.7GLM-4.7vsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 TerravsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GLM-4.7vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6.1 TerravsMistral Large 4GLM-4.7vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-6.1 Terra and GLM-4.7 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GLM-4.7 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.60 vs $1.00 per million input tokens, and $2.20 vs $5.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. GLM-4.7 shipped 308 days before GPT-6.1 Terra, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1.05M (GPT-6.1 Terra) vs 200k (GLM-4.7). GPT-6.1 Terra is closed, while GLM-4.7 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-6.1 Terra and GLM-4.7 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.