Document analysis requires precision, large context windows, and the ability to follow extraction instructions without hallucinating. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the best for contract review and structured extraction. Gemini 3.1 Pro handles the largest documents. GPT-5.4 is strongest for structured JSON output from documents.
The safest document analysis default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the strongest answer here for document analysis — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $3.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
GPT-5.4 is the cheaper way in for document analysis, at $2.50/1M/1M input against Claude Sonnet 4.6's $3.00/1M/1M.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the fastest of these for document analysis — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on structured extraction accuracy and instruction following for contract analysis.
Gemini 3.1 Pro's 2M context window handles documents that exceed 1M tokens in a single pass.
GPT-5.4 produces the most reliable structured JSON output from documents with complex schemas.
Choose Claude Sonnet 4.6 for legal, financial, and compliance document review requiring high accuracy.
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro when the document exceeds 1M tokens (full case files, large code repositories).
Choose GPT-5.4 when you need structured JSON extraction from documents for downstream data pipelines.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the document analysis answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / Sep 3, 2026
Best daily driver for coding and writing — the model most developers actually reach for.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You specifically need desktop-control capabilities (GPT-5.5/GPT-5.4) or the absolute highest coding ceiling (Opus 4.7).
Where the document analysis recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Best daily driver for coding and writing — the model most developers actually reach for.
Best for research and deep document analysis — 2M context at the best premium price.
Best for agentic automation and desktop control workflows.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | $3.00/1M | $15.00/1M | $60 | 1M tokens | Balanced | 97 | 98 | 93 |
| Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle | $2.00/1M | $12.00/1M | $44 | 2M tokens | Balanced | 80 | 82 | 99 |
| GPT-5.4OpenAI | $2.50/1M | $15.00/1M | $55 | 272k tokens | Balanced | 90 | 88 | 88 |
| Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 96 | 93 | 95 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for document analysis, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
The default answer for document analysis — 97/100 on the coding axis, and the model we would start with unless the price below rules it out.
The default model powering Cursor and Windsurf. 79.6% SWE-bench, 1M context window, and best-in-tier writing quality — all at $3/1M input.
You specifically need desktop-control capabilities (GPT-5.5/GPT-5.4) or the absolute highest coding ceiling (Opus 4.7).
The best all-around model for most developers and writers. Strong SWE-bench, excellent writing, 1M context — all at $3/1M input. Hard to beat as a daily driver.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Sonnet 4.6 page.
The fastest model in this shortlist for document analysis. Pick it when turnaround is what your readers or users notice.
Google's flagship with the largest context window of any frontier model at 2M tokens, Deep Think reasoning, and the best price-to-performance among premium models.
Your primary use case is writing quality or agentic coding — Claude wins both.
The best research and long-context model available. Handles entire codebases, legal documents, and large datasets in a single pass — at a lower price than GPT-5.4 or Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Gemini 3.1 Pro page.
Where most budgets should land for document analysis — premium-tier pricing, and still 90/100 on the coding axis.
Best for agentic automation and desktop control workflows. Full GPT-5.4 review →
Also worth a look for document analysis, at 96/100 on the coding axis.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price. Full Claude Opus 4.7 review →
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the document analysis pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the best for most PDF analysis — it follows extraction prompts precisely and rarely hallucinates. For very large PDFs (over 500 pages), Gemini 3.1 Pro's 2M token context window is the better choice.
Yes, with proper prompting. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.4 both handle financial table extraction well. Always instruct the model to only report what it directly reads, and verify key figures manually — even the best models can make arithmetic errors.
Upload the full document (or paste the text) and ask specific extraction questions. For documents under 1M tokens, Claude Sonnet 4.6 reads the whole thing at once. For longer documents, Gemini 3.1 Pro handles up to 2M tokens in a single pass.