Compare models. Find the differences.
Add, remove, or change models in the table.
Benchmark snapshot
1 benchmarks in common.
4 models selected. 1 benchmarks in common.
Reported scores; test settings may differ.
| Benchmark | OpenAI | MiniMax | Anthropic | Google |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arena ELOHuman preference | Not in our dataset | 1,391 | 1,426 | 1,445 |
| LiveBench 1.0General reasoning | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | 82.4% |
| GPQA DiamondScientific knowledge | Not in our dataset | 85.2% | 79.6% | 86.4% |
| HLEAcademic reasoning | Not in our dataset | 19.4% | 10.7% | 21.6% |
| MMLU ProMulti-task understanding | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | 85.0% | 86.0% |
| SimpleBenchCommonsense reasoning | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | 62.4% |
| AIME 2025Mathematics | Not in our dataset | 86.3% | 75.5% | 88.0% |
| GSOGraduate science | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | 6.9% | 3.9% |
| AiderCode editing | 84.9% | Not in our dataset | 72.0% | 83.1% |
| SWE-Bench VerifiedAgentic coding | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | 72.5% | 59.6% |
| LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | 56.6% | 70.4% |
| Tau-BenchAgentic tool use | Not in our dataset | Not in our dataset | 81.4% | 67.0% |
| Terminal-BenchAgentic terminal | Not in our dataset | 42.2% | Not in our dataset | 32.6% |
| ARC-AGI-2Visual reasoning | 4.9% | 4.9% | 8.6% | 4.9% |
Pricing & context Published USD rates per 1M tokens
| Specification | o3 Pro (Extended Reasoning) | M2 M2.5 | Claude Opus 4 4.0 Thinking | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input | $20 | $0.255 | $15 | $1.25 |
| Output | $80 | $1.02 | $75 | $10 |
| Context window | 200K | 205K | 200K | Not available |
| Pricing details | Explore 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.