UseRightAI
HomeModelsAsk AIComparePricingWhat's New
UseRightAICut through AI hype. Pick what works.

Independent AI model tracker. Live pricing, real benchmarks, zero vendor bias.

X (Twitter)LinkedInUpdatesContact

Compare

Opus 4.8 vs Opus 4.7Fable 5 vs Opus 4.8New AI Models 2026ChatGPT vs ClaudeGPT-4o vs Claude SonnetClaude vs GeminiDeepSeek vs ChatGPTMistral vs ClaudeGemini Flash vs GPT-4o MiniLlama vs ChatGPTAll comparisons →Build your own →

Best For

CodingWritingDevelopersProduct ManagersDesignersSalesBest Cheap AIBest Free AI

Pricing & Data

API Token PricingCost per TaskPrice HistoryBenchmark ScoresPrivacy & SafetySubscription PlansPlan Usage LimitsCost CalculatorWhich AI is Cheapest?Cheapest AI APIs

Company

About UseRightAIContactWhat ChangedAll ModelsEditorial PolicyDisclosuresPrivacy PolicyTerms of Service

© 2026 UseRightAI. Independent · Free forever · Not affiliated with any AI provider.

Affiliate links are clearly labeled. See disclosures.

Model Comparison

Compare AI models side by side

Pick up to 3 models and compare input cost, output cost, context window, speed, and more. The best value in each row is highlighted. Share your comparison with a link.

How to read a model comparison without being misled

Input price is the least useful number in the table

Providers advertise input cost because it is the smaller of the two, and output tokens are typically priced three to five times higher. What you actually pay depends on your ratio: a summariser sends a lot and returns a little, so input dominates; an agent that writes code inverts that completely. Read both columns together, weighted the way your own work is weighted, and treat any single headline figure as marketing.

A context window is a ceiling, not a working range

A million-token window means a million tokens fit, not that quality holds across them. Retrieval accuracy degrades well before the limit on every model, and you pay for every token you send on every turn — a long conversation re-bills its own history. Treat the window as headroom that saves you from chunking, and assume real quality lives comfortably inside it.

Benchmark gaps under a few points are noise

Published scores come from different harnesses, different prompt scaffolds and often different attempt budgets. A two-point difference on a coding benchmark tells you far less than a five-times price difference or a latency difference you can feel. Use scores to rule models out, not to rank the survivors.

Speed labels and real latency are different things

Throughput — tokens per second once a model starts — is not the same as time to first token, and reasoning models can sit silent for a long time before either. If the model sits in an interactive loop, the wait before the first character is the number that decides whether people keep using it.

A shortcut for the common case

Compare three models, not ten: the one you use now, the obvious upgrade, and the obvious cheaper option. If the upgrade is not clearly better on the axis you care about, stay put. If the cheaper option is within a few points on that axis, run a week of real work through it before assuming you need the expensive one. Every comparison here is shareable — the model selection travels in the URL.

What to compare next

Top coding modelsBudget vs balancedThe three big defaultsBudget picks
 
OpenAIPremium
GPT-6 Astra

OpenAI's frontier answer to Fable 5.1 — computer-use and agentic-coding leader at $10/$50.

MistralBudget
Mistral Small 3.1

Ultra-cheap multimodal model for massive-volume, low-complexity pipelines.

Input cost / 1M tokens$10.00/1M$0.10/1M—
Output cost / 1M tokens$50.00/1M$0.30/1M—
Context window1.1M tokens128k tokens—
SpeedDeliberateVery fast—
Price tierPremiumBudget—
Best forComputer and browser use, long-horizon agentic coding, and frontier math and science workUltra-high-volume classification, summarisation, and lightweight vision tasks—
Last verifiedTodayToday—
VerdictThe new computer-use and agentic-coding ceiling, and OpenAI's first model priced like a Mythos-class Claude. Astra beats Claude Fable 5.1 on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (57.9% vs 55.8%), Terminal-Bench Science (64.6% vs 52.6%) and FrontierMath Tier 4 (97.6% vs 87.8%), and it is the only model with a credible OSWorld 2.0 result above 70%. It loses to Fable 5.1 on Humanity's Last Exam and on Artificial Analysis's index, costs five times GPT-5.6 Sol, and ships without a SWE-bench number. If your work is computer use, browser agents or math, it is the pick; for everyday coding at scale, Sol at $2/$10 remains the value default.The cheapest credible option in the directory. Use it when volume is enormous and task complexity is low.
View full profileTry GPT-6 Astra
View full profileTry Mistral Small 3.1
OpenAIPremium

GPT-6 Astra

OpenAI's frontier answer to Fable 5.1 — computer-use and agentic-coding leader at $10/$50.

Input cost / 1M tokens
$10.00/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens
$50.00/1M
Context window✓ best
1.1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
Price tier
Premium

The new computer-use and agentic-coding ceiling, and OpenAI's first model priced like a Mythos-class Claude. Astra beats Claude Fable 5.1 on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (57.9% vs 55.8%), Terminal-Bench Science (64.6% vs 52.6%) and FrontierMath Tier 4 (97.6% vs 87.8%), and it is the only model with a credible OSWorld 2.0 result above 70%. It loses to Fable 5.1 on Humanity's Last Exam and on Artificial Analysis's index, costs five times GPT-5.6 Sol, and ships without a SWE-bench number. If your work is computer use, browser agents or math, it is the pick; for everyday coding at scale, Sol at $2/$10 remains the value default.

Full profileTry GPT-6 Astra
MistralBudget

Mistral Small 3.1

Ultra-cheap multimodal model for massive-volume, low-complexity pipelines.

Input cost / 1M tokens✓ best
$0.10/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens✓ best
$0.30/1M
Context window
128k tokens
Speed✓ best
Very fast
Price tier✓ best
Budget

The cheapest credible option in the directory. Use it when volume is enormous and task complexity is low.

Full profileTry Mistral Small 3.1

Share this comparison

Tweet