Compare AI models
Side-by-side comparison of any two LLMs — GPT vs Claude, Gemini vs DeepSeek, open vs proprietary — on pricing, benchmarks, API availability, context window, and release date.
Decision builder
Pick the pair before opening the detail page
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 for higher current agentic coding and computer-use confidence; token pricing is tied on tracked $5/1M input and $25/1M output routes, so keep Claude Opus 4.7 only for already-validated prompts or coding workflow support constraints.
- Output price
- $25.00 / $25.00
- Context
- 1m / 1m
- Benchmarks
- 5 shared
- Providers
- 6 / 6
Popular pairs
Browse comparisons with a decision signal attached
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Grok 4.5
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol when you want OpenAI's July 2026 frontier stack, the larger 1.05M context window, and OpenAI-sourced GA rows such as DeepSWE 1.1 at 72.7% and GPQA Diamond at 94.6%. Pick Grok 4.5 when xAI's lower standard-tier API pricing ($2/$6 per 1M tokens for prompts up to 200K) and Grok Build/Cursor distribution matter more, and run your own acceptance tests because several Grok 4.5 chart scores are xAI first-party only. Do not treat Terra or Luna as the OpenAI flagship in this pair.
- Output price
- $30.00 / $6.00
- Context
- 1.05m / 500k
- Benchmarks
- 8 shared
- Providers
- 2 / 3
Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for a fully available OpenAI GA route with 1.05M context, lower standard output pricing at $30/M versus Fable 5's $50/M, and OpenAI launch rows you can cite directly in procurement reviews. Pick Claude Fable 5 when Anthropic's agentic coding evidence, adaptive thinking, and long-horizon workflow positioning outweigh access verification, especially after you confirm live Fable 5 availability on your provider route. Do not reuse GPT-5.6 Ultra multi-agent scores as single-model apples-to-apples results.
- Output price
- $50.00 / $30.00
- Context
- 1m / 1.05m
- Benchmarks
- 7 shared
- Providers
- 8 / 2
Claude Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5
Pick Grok 4.5 when lower standard-tier API economics ($2/$6 per 1M tokens up to 200K prompt tokens), Grok Build or Cursor distribution, and xAI-first coding launch claims matter most, while accepting first-party-only chart rows for some benchmarks. Pick Claude Fable 5 when Anthropic's stronger sourced agentic coding evidence and adaptive thinking fit the workload and you have verified live Fable 5 access, accepting higher $10/$50 launch pricing and explicit safety-classifier behavior. This is the flagship xAI-versus-Anthropic route; use Sonnet 5 only for balanced-tier product comparisons.
- Output price
- $50.00 / $6.00
- Context
- 1m / 500k
- Benchmarks
- 7 shared
- Providers
- 8 / 3
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 5
Choose Claude Opus 5 for new complex agentic coding and enterprise work, or when Anthropic's migration guidance and default adaptive-thinking behavior justify revalidation. Keep Opus 4.8 during a controlled migration when production prompts, safeguards, latency, or provider behavior are already qualified. Base price, headline context limits, and available effort levels do not decide this pair because they are the same; test the exact thinking mode, effort setting, and provider route that you plan to ship.
- Output price
- $25.00 / $25.00
- Context
- 1m / 1m
- Benchmarks
- No shared rows
- Providers
- 6 / 7
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5
Choose Claude Opus 5 when you want the premium everyday route for complex coding, long-running agents, and enterprise analysis at half Fable 5's standard token price. Evaluate Claude Fable 5 when the highest available capability is worth the higher price and its access and safeguard profile fits the workload. Neither model is a universal winner: use setting-matched evaluations and test the provider route, latency, safety behavior, and task mix you actually plan to deploy.
- Output price
- $50.00 / $25.00
- Context
- 1m / 1m
- Benchmarks
- No shared rows
- Providers
- 8 / 7
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5
Pick Claude Fable 5 when the workload needs Anthropic's highest generally available capability tier and you can accept refusal/fallback behavior plus the $10/M input and $50/M output launch price once access is restored. Pick Claude Sonnet 5 for cost-sensitive production coding, higher throughput, and mainstream API adoption where Sonnet-tier capability is enough.
- Output price
- $50.00 / $10.00
- Context
- 1m / 1m
- Benchmarks
- 10 shared
- Providers
- 8 / 5
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 is ~50% cheaper at $2/1M; pay for Claude Sonnet 4.6 only for coding workflow support.
- Output price
- $15.00 / $10.00
- Context
- 1m / 1m
- Benchmarks
- 4 shared
- Providers
- 6 / 5
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Pick Claude Fable 5 when you need Anthropic's most capable widely released Mythos-class route and can accept documented refusal and fallback behavior after verifying live access. Keep Claude Opus 4.8 when you need the prior Opus behavior profile, fallback predictability, or a route that may still be easier to reason about for some regulated workflows. Treat the June 9 launch, June 12 suspension, and July 1 redeploy timeline as part of the product decision, not a footnote.
- Output price
- $50.00 / $25.00
- Context
- 1m / 1m
- Benchmarks
- 10 shared
- Providers
- 8 / 6
Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.5
On every published agentic coding benchmark, Claude Fable 5 outperforms GPT-5.5 by a wide margin: 80.3% vs 58.6% on SWE-bench Pro (+21.7 pts), 96% vs 82.6% on SWE-bench Verified (Vals.ai), and 85.0% vs 78.7% on OSWorld-Verified computer use. Fable 5 also leads on knowledge-work quality (GDPval-AA ELO: 1932 vs 1769) and agentic legal tasks (13.3% vs 2.1% Legal Agent Benchmark). GPT-5.5 counters with a 93.6% GPQA Diamond score, while Fable 5's GPQA is not published, and notably costs half as much at $5/$30 per 1M tokens versus $10/$50. For pure coding and agentic workflows, Claude Fable 5 is the stronger performer once access is restored. For teams balancing cost with broad reasoning capability, GPT-5.5 is a compelling alternative, especially at roughly half the output price.
- Output price
- $50.00 / $30.00
- Context
- 1m / 1.05m
- Benchmarks
- 14 shared
- Providers
- 8 / 4
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 for higher current agentic coding and computer-use confidence; token pricing is tied on tracked $5/1M input and $25/1M output routes, so keep Claude Opus 4.7 only for already-validated prompts or coding workflow support constraints.
- Output price
- $25.00 / $25.00
- Context
- 1m / 1m
- Benchmarks
- 5 shared
- Providers
- 6 / 6
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3.5 Pro
Use Claude Opus 4.8 for production agentic coding today: it has tracked provider routes, pricing, and public rows for SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1, and GPQA Diamond. Track Gemini 3.5 Pro for long-context and multimodal workloads where the 2M-token window may beat Opus 4.8's 1M window, but do not budget or migrate production traffic until Google confirms GA pricing and public API details.
- Output price
- $25.00 / Unpriced
- Context
- 1m / 2m
- Benchmarks
- No shared rows
- Providers
- 6 / 0
Gemini 3.5 Pro vs GPT-5.5
Pick GPT-5.5 for production decisions today because it has public pricing, multiple provider routes, and benchmark rows in the local data. Keep Gemini 3.5 Pro on the shortlist when the workload is bottlenecked by context length or Google ecosystem routing, but wait for GA pricing, public provider routes, and independent benchmark evidence before replacing GPT-5.5.
- Output price
- Unpriced / $30.00
- Context
- 2m / 1.05m
- Benchmarks
- No shared rows
- Providers
- 0 / 4
Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-5.3-Codex
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 for autonomous repo work, complex multi-file engineering, computer-use agents, and long-context sessions: it leads GPT-5.3-Codex by 12.4 points on SWE-bench Pro and 18.7 points on OSWorld, with 1M context versus 400K. Pick GPT-5.3-Codex for cost-sensitive coding pipelines, OpenAI-native Codex workflows, and terminal automation where its $1.75/M input price and 77.3% Terminal-Bench 2.0 score matter more than the harder agent benchmarks.
- Output price
- $25.00 / $14.00
- Context
- 1m / 400k
- Benchmarks
- 2 shared
- Providers
- 6 / 3
Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-5.5
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 for coding; GPT-5.5 is better when coding workflow support matters more.
- Output price
- $25.00 / $30.00
- Context
- 1m / 1.05m
- Benchmarks
- 14 shared
- Providers
- 6 / 4
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Unisound U2
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro for production evaluation today: it has sourced context, pricing routes, and stronger public benchmark coverage. Evaluate Unisound U2 when Chinese sovereign routing, Token Hub access, or long-horizon task-execution positioning matters, but treat its GPQA 87.9 and SWE-bench Verified 75.0 rows as low-confidence vendor claims until independent leaderboards confirm them.
- Output price
- $0.870 / Unpriced
- Context
- 1m / —
- Benchmarks
- No shared rows
- Providers
- 5 / 1
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash is safer overall; choose GPT-5.5 when coding workflow support matters.
- Output price
- $9.00 / $30.00
- Context
- 1.05m / 1.05m
- Benchmarks
- 12 shared
- Providers
- 4 / 4
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash is safer overall; choose Gemini 3.5 Flash when coding workflow support matters.
- Output price
- $9.00 / $7.50
- Context
- 1.05m / 1.05m
- Benchmarks
- No shared rows
- Providers
- 4 / 1
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is ~400% cheaper at $0.30/1M; pay for Gemini 3.5 Flash only for coding workflow support.
- Output price
- $9.00 / $2.50
- Context
- 1.05m / 1.05m
- Benchmarks
- No shared rows
- Providers
- 4 / 1
Popular comparisons
Top model matchups by recent search demand
The matchups buyers actually run before committing to a provider for coding, agents, or build automation.