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 ModelsGuidesEditorial 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
 
AnthropicPremium
Claude Opus 4.6

Earlier Opus flagship — the current Opus is Claude Opus 5.5.

AnthropicPremium
Claude Sonnet 4.6

Earlier Sonnet — replaced by Sonnet 5 and then Sonnet 5.5.

OpenAIPremium
GPT-5.4

Best for agentic automation and desktop control workflows.

Input cost / 1M tokens$5.00/1M$3.00/1M$2.50/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens$25.00/1M$15.00/1M$15.00/1M
Context window1M tokens1M tokens272k tokens
SpeedDeliberateBalancedBalanced
Price tierPremiumPremiumPremium
Best forAgentic coding, complex multi-step reasoning, and deep researchDaily coding, writing, and long-document work at a strong price-to-quality ratioAgentic workflows, desktop automation, and complex multi-step reasoning
Last verifiedTodayTodayToday
VerdictSuperseded several times over — by Opus 4.7, 4.8, 5 and now Opus 5.5. Still capable for pinned integrations, but new work should use Claude Opus 5.5 or the cheaper Sonnet 5.5.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.Still capable for desktop automation at its $2.50/$15 price, but superseded: GPT-6.1 Sol is stronger at $2/$10, and Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding.
View full profileTry Claude Opus 4.6
View full profileTry Claude Sonnet 4.6
View full profileTry GPT-5.4
AnthropicPremium

Claude Opus 4.6

Earlier Opus flagship — the current Opus is Claude Opus 5.5.

Input cost / 1M tokens
$5.00/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens
$25.00/1M
Context window✓ best
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
Price tier
Premium

Superseded several times over — by Opus 4.7, 4.8, 5 and now Opus 5.5. Still capable for pinned integrations, but new work should use Claude Opus 5.5 or the cheaper Sonnet 5.5.

Full profileTry Claude Opus 4.6
AnthropicPremium

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Earlier Sonnet — replaced by Sonnet 5 and then Sonnet 5.5.

Input cost / 1M tokens
$3.00/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens✓ best
$15.00/1M
Context window✓ best
1M tokens
Speed✓ best
Balanced
Price tier
Premium

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 profileTry Claude Sonnet 4.6
OpenAIPremium

GPT-5.4

Best for agentic automation and desktop control workflows.

Input cost / 1M tokens✓ best
$2.50/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens✓ best
$15.00/1M
Context window
272k tokens
Speed✓ best
Balanced
Price tier
Premium

Still capable for desktop automation at its $2.50/$15 price, but superseded: GPT-6.1 Sol is stronger at $2/$10, and Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding.

Full profileTry GPT-5.4

Share this comparison

Tweet