Compare models. Find the differences.

Add, remove, or change models in the table.

Benchmark snapshot

4 benchmarks in common.

4 models selected. 4 benchmarks in common.

Reported scores; test settings may differ.

Reported benchmark results for Claude Fable 5 Thinking, GPT-6.1 Sol Thinking, Claude Opus 5 Thinking, Gemini 3.8 Flash
Benchmark
Anthropic
OpenAI
Anthropic
Google
Arena ELOHuman preference1,5041,4811,4921,496
LiveBench 1.0General reasoning83.0%81.6%80.1%75.8%
GPQA DiamondScientific knowledge92.6%Not in our dataset93.7%95.3%
HLEAcademic reasoningNot in our datasetNot in our datasetNot in our dataset44.5%
SimpleBenchCommonsense reasoning81.9%82.9%80.6%82.4%
GSOGraduate science78.4%Not in our datasetNot in our datasetNot in our dataset
ARC-AGI-2Visual reasoning88.3%91.7%88.3%89.2%
Pricing & context Published USD rates per 1M tokens
SpecificationClaude Fable 5 ThinkingGPT-6.1 Sol ThinkingClaude Opus 5 ThinkingGemini 3.8 Flash
Input$10$2$5$0.825
Output$50$10$25$4.125
Context window1.0M1.1M1.0M1.0M
Pricing detailsExplore pricing →Explore pricing →Explore pricing →Explore pricing →
How to read this comparison

Each column keeps the exact model version you selected. Shared benchmarks are the intersection of their reported results; “all coverage” also shows where evidence is missing. Missing results never count as zero.

These are published benchmark scores, not a controlled head-to-head test. The available evidence does not establish matching evaluation settings, so we show no cross-model winner highlights or deltas. Composite quality scores are omitted because they can summarize different benchmark sets.

Scores and statistics are computed upstream. This page reads a fixed data snapshot; its date describes the snapshot, not the date of every measurement.