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.

Sitemap coverage 4367+ pairs

Decision builder

Pick the pair before opening the detail page

228 selectable models

Model AModel BOpen comparison

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is safer overall; choose Claude Sonnet 5.5 when vision-heavy evaluation matters.

0% gap

Output price: $10.00 / $10.00
Context: 1M / 1.05M
Benchmarks: 3 shared
Providers: 5 / 3

Popular pairs

Browse comparisons with a decision signal attached

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is safer overall; choose Claude Sonnet 5.5 when vision-heavy evaluation matters.

0% gap3 benchmarks

Output price: $10.00 / $10.00
Context: 1M / 1.05M
Benchmarks: 3 shared
Providers: 5 / 3

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads Google-Proof Q&A

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is ~100% cheaper at $2/1M; pay for Claude Opus 5.5 only for vision-heavy evaluation.

100% gap4 benchmarks

Output price: $20.00 / $10.00
Context: 1M / 1.05M
Benchmarks: 4 shared
Providers: 5 / 3

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextGPT-6.1 Sol leads Google-Proof Q&A

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra

Pick GPT-6 Astra for math; token pricing is tied, so keep Claude Fable 5.1 only for already-validated prompts or route constraints.

0% gap3 benchmarks

Output price: $50.00 / $50.00
Context: 1M / 1.05M
Benchmarks: 3 shared
Providers: 5 / 2

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextGPT-6 Astra leads FrontierMath Tier 4

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna

Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 for coding; token pricing is tied, so keep GPT-6 Luna only for already-validated prompts or route constraints.

0% gap1 benchmarks

Output price: $0.500 / $0.500
Context: 1M / 1.05M
Benchmarks: 1 shared
Providers: 6 / 4

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextClaude Haiku 5.5 leads FrontierCode 1.1 Main

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

Pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 for coding; token pricing is tied, so keep Claude Sonnet 5 only for already-validated prompts or route constraints.

0% gap11 benchmarks

Output price: $10.00 / $10.00
Context: 1M / 1M
Benchmarks: 11 shared
Providers: 6 / 5

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads CursorBench

Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is safer overall; choose Claude Opus 5 when coding workflow support matters.

25% gap6 benchmarks

Output price: $25.00 / $20.00
Context: 1M / 1M
Benchmarks: 6 shared
Providers: 7 / 5

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextClaude Opus 5.5 leads CursorBench

Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1

Pick Claude Fable 5 for coding; token pricing is tied, so keep Claude Fable 5.1 only for already-validated prompts or route constraints.

0% gap6 benchmarks

Output price: $50.00 / $50.00
Context: 1M / 1M
Benchmarks: 6 shared
Providers: 8 / 5

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextClaude Fable 5 leads CursorBench

GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is safer overall; choose GPT-6 Sol when coding workflow support matters.

0% gap4 benchmarks

Output price: $10.00 / $10.00
Context: 1.05M / 1.05M
Benchmarks: 4 shared
Providers: 4 / 3

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextGPT-6.1 Sol leads Google-Proof Q&A

Kimi K3 vs Muse Spark Open

Muse Spark Open is ~140% cheaper at $1.25/1M; pay for Kimi K3 only for vision-heavy evaluation.

253% gap7 benchmarks

Output price: $15.00 / $4.25
Context: 1M / 1M
Benchmarks: 7 shared
Providers: 3 / 4

RAGAgentsLong contextVisionKimi K3 leads Google-Proof Q&A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna

GPT-6 Luna is safer overall; choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash when vision-heavy evaluation matters.

20% gap1 benchmarks

Output price: $0.600 / $0.500
Context: 1M / 1.05M
Benchmarks: 1 shared
Providers: 2 / 4

RAGAgentsLong contextVisionDeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads Google-Proof Q&A

Kimi K3 vs Mistral Large 4

Mistral Large 4 is ~341% cheaper at $0.68/1M; pay for Kimi K3 only for reasoning depth.

618% gap2 benchmarks

Output price: $15.00 / $2.09
Context: 1M / 1M
Benchmarks: 2 shared
Providers: 3 / 3

RAGAgentsLong contextVisionKimi K3 leads Google-Proof Q&A

Muse Spark Open vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL

Muse Spark Open is safer overall; choose Nemotron 3.5 Super VL when vision-heavy evaluation matters.

No price gap2 benchmarks

Output price: $4.25 / Unpriced
Context: 1M / 1M
Benchmarks: 2 shared
Providers: 4 / 1

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextNemotron 3.5 Super VL leads Google-Proof Q&A

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.

100% gap6 benchmarks

Output price: $50.00 / $25.00
Context: 1M / 1M
Benchmarks: 6 shared
Providers: 8 / 7

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextClaude Fable 5 leads CursorBench

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.

150% gap7 benchmarks

Output price: $50.00 / $20.00
Context: 1M / 1.05M
Benchmarks: 7 shared
Providers: 8 / 2

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextClaude Fable 5 leads SWE-bench Pro

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.6 Flash

Gemini 3.6 Flash is ~100% cheaper at $0.75/1M; pay for Gemini 3.5 Flash only for coding workflow support.

140% gap2 benchmarks

Output price: $9.00 / $3.75
Context: 1M / 1M
Benchmarks: 2 shared
Providers: 4 / 2

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextGemini 3.6 Flash leads Google-Proof Q&A

GPT-5.5 vs Qwen3.7-Max

Pick GPT-5.5 for terminal-heavy agents, tool orchestration, and multimodal workflows: it leads Terminal-Bench 2.0 at 82.7% versus 69.7% and supports image input. Pick Qwen3.7-Max when repository-scale coding and token cost matter more: it leads SWE-bench Pro at 60.6% versus 58.6%, and OpenRouter currently lists a 50% promotional rate of $1.25/M input and $3.75/M output. Treat Qwen3.7-Max pricing as freshness-sensitive because Alibaba's official pricing page did not list the 3.7 series at integration time.

700% gap9 benchmarks

Output price: $30.00 / $3.75
Context: 1.05M / 1M
Benchmarks: 9 shared
Providers: 5 / 4

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextQwen3.7-Max leads MMLU PRO

DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM-5.1

No overall winner is assigned for this pair. Comparable benchmark rows are withheld because required row-level provenance is missing, and provider pricing remains pending a separate primary-source audit. Use the published 1M-token DeepSeek V4 Pro and 200K-token GLM-5.1 context limits plus tests of your exact deployment; do not infer a quality or cost winner from this page.

406% gapBenchmark gap

Output price: $0.870 / $4.40
Context: 1M / 200K
Benchmarks: No shared rows
Providers: 6 / 5

CodingRAGAgentsLong context

DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Kimi K2.6

Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro for pure code generation, large-codebase analysis, and the lowest per-token cost before its 75% discount expires on 2026-05-31. Pick Kimi K2.6 when your pipeline processes images, screenshots, PDFs, or spreadsheets, or when you need long agent runs with many sequential tool calls.

291% gap12 benchmarks

Output price: $0.870 / $3.40
Context: 1M / 256K
Benchmarks: 12 shared
Providers: 6 / 9

CodingRAGAgentsLong contextDeepSeek V4 Pro leads MMLU PRO

Popular comparisons

Top model matchups by recent search demand

Demand signal: Recent search impressions
Use: Provider and workload shortlisting

Top 100