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
 
MistralBudget
Codestral 25.01

Best budget-focused coding specialist for high-volume developer teams.

GoogleBudget
Gemini 3.1 Flash

Best cheap AI for broad day-to-day work — now with 1M context.

AnthropicBudget
Claude 4 Haiku

Best low-cost writing option for fast-moving content teams.

Input cost / 1M tokens$0.90/1M$0.50/1M$0.80/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens$2.70/1M$3.00/1M$4.00/1M
Context window256k tokens1M tokens200k tokens
SpeedVery fastVery fastVery fast
Price tierBudgetBudgetBudget
Best forAffordable high-volume coding supportHigh-volume everyday AI usage where speed and cost both matterFast budget writing, support automation, and cost-sensitive Anthropic integrations
Last verifiedTodayTodayToday
VerdictThe sharpest cheap coding specialist when cost control is part of the engineering plan.The best all-around budget model for most teams. Faster than its predecessor, cheaper, and with a 1M context window that outclasses every other budget option.The best pick when you want Anthropic quality at a budget price point — especially for writing-heavy automations.
View full profileTry Codestral 25.01
View full profileTry Gemini 3.1 Flash
View full profileTry Claude 4 Haiku
MistralBudget

Codestral 25.01

Best budget-focused coding specialist for high-volume developer teams.

Input cost / 1M tokens
$0.90/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens✓ best
$2.70/1M
Context window
256k tokens
Speed
Very fast
Price tier
Budget

The sharpest cheap coding specialist when cost control is part of the engineering plan.

Full profileTry Codestral 25.01
GoogleBudget

Gemini 3.1 Flash

Best cheap AI for broad day-to-day work — now with 1M context.

Input cost / 1M tokens✓ best
$0.50/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens
$3.00/1M
Context window✓ best
1M tokens
Speed
Very fast
Price tier
Budget

The best all-around budget model for most teams. Faster than its predecessor, cheaper, and with a 1M context window that outclasses every other budget option.

Full profileTry Gemini 3.1 Flash
AnthropicBudget

Claude 4 Haiku

Best low-cost writing option for fast-moving content teams.

Input cost / 1M tokens
$0.80/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens
$4.00/1M
Context window
200k tokens
Speed
Very fast
Price tier
Budget

The best pick when you want Anthropic quality at a budget price point — especially for writing-heavy automations.

Full profileTry Claude 4 Haiku

Share this comparison

Tweet