Skip to content

Blog

AI coding models, compared.

121 side-by-side comparisons of 38 AI coding models from 10 makers, with published prices, prompt caching, and what the same coding work costs on each.

Updated . Every price links to its source.

Models

Claude vs GPT

19 comparisons

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

    GPT-5.6 Sol costs 60% less than Claude Fable 5.1 at promotional rates available at least through November 21, 2026. Why caching leaves the 2.5x gap intact.

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra

    Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra share $10 input and $50 output prices, and a cached coding session costs $10.50 on each. Caching decides which way it tips.

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Sol

    Claude Fable 5.1 costs 5x what GPT-6 Sol does per token, and caching leaves that ratio intact. How Anthropic's top model compares with OpenAI's middle one.

  • Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GPT-5.6 Luna

    After an 80% price cut, GPT-5.6 Luna costs a fifth of Claude Haiku 4.5 for input. A month of cached coding sessions: $24.20 against $132.00.

  • Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GPT-5.6 Terra

    Claude Haiku 4.5 costs about half of GPT-5.6 Terra per token, $1.20 against $2.20 per coding session. Terra offers a 1.05M context window and 128K output.

  • Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GPT-6 Luna

    GPT-6 Luna lists a tenth of Claude Haiku 4.5's rates and a 1.05M context window against 200K. What each costs for sub-agents and cached coding sessions.

  • Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-5.5

    Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 share a $5 input price, yet GPT-5.5 costs less on cached sessions and Opus 4.8 less on output-heavy work. Where the crossover falls.

  • Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

    Claude Opus 5 lists 25% above GPT-5.6 Sol, and Anthropic's 1-hour cache writes stretch that to 43% on a coding session. Promotions, long context, successors.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-5.5

    Claude Opus 5.5 undercuts GPT-5.5 on input, output, and cache hits, yet a cached coding session is only 12% cheaper. GPT-5.5 leaves Codex sign-in soon.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

    Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-5.6 Sol share $4 input and $20 output prices. Cache rules decide the rest: a coding session costs $4.40 on Opus 5.5 and $4.20 on Sol.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra

    Claude Code defaults to Claude Opus 5.5 and Codex CLI to GPT-6 Astra. Astra costs 2.5x more per token and 2.4x more on a cached coding session. Here is why.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Sol

    Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol launched the same day. Opus 5.5 lists at 2x Sol's prices, and its 1-hour cache writes stretch a coding session to 2.1x.

  • Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5.3-Codex

    Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.3-Codex launched 12 days apart in February 2026. One takes 1M tokens of context, the other costs 46% less per session. Tradeoffs.

  • Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5.4

    Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.4 both charge $15 per million output tokens, so the cost gap lives in cache writes. What that means for sessions and upgrades.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-5.5

    GPT-5.5 costs 2.5x Claude Sonnet 5 for input and 3x for output, and it leaves ChatGPT and Codex sign-in on October 14, 2026. What that means for coding.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

    GPT-5.6 Sol charges twice Claude Sonnet 5's rates on promotional pricing that runs through at least November 21, 2026. A cached session: $4.20 vs $2.40.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-5.6 Terra

    Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5.6 Terra share a $2 input rate. Terra costs less on cached sessions, Sonnet 5 on output-heavy work. The numbers, line by line.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-6 Astra

    GPT-6 Astra charges 5x Claude Sonnet 5's rates on every kind of token. One cached coding session costs $10.50 against $2.40, a 4.4x gap. Here is why.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-6 Sol

    Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-6 Sol list the same $2 input and $10 output rates. Cache writes decide the gap: $2.40 against $2.10 for one coding session.

Claude vs Gemini

11 comparisons

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    A cached coding session costs 5.3x more on Claude Fable 5.1 than on Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, mostly from cache writes. Output limits and preview status compared.

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    A cached coding session costs 14.8x more on Claude Fable 5.1 than on Gemini 3.8 Flash. How Flash's introductory rates, output cap, and free tier factor in.

  • Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

    Claude Haiku 4.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite both target sub-agent work. Haiku 4.5 costs 3.5x as much per cached session, but only 2x as much per output token.

  • Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 Flash undercuts Claude Haiku 4.5 on introductory rates, $0.71 against $1.20 per cached session. From January 1, 2027, its rates top Haiku's.

  • Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    Claude Opus 4.8 costs 3x Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on a cached coding session, $6.00 against $2.00. How long prompts, fast mode, and preview status shift that.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview costs less than half of Claude Opus 5.5 on a cached coding session, though both charge $0.20 per cache hit. Where the gap comes from.

  • Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro

    Gemini 2.5 Pro costs less than Claude Sonnet 4.6 on every rate, but caps output at 65.5K tokens and now limits who can use it. The full cost and access picture.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview both charge $2 input, but Gemini's rates rise past 200K tokens and it is still a preview. Session: $2.40 vs $2.00.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Gemini 3.5 Flash, now Google's legacy Flash, costs $1.50 against $2.40 on Claude Sonnet 5 per cached coding session. Most of the gap is cache writes.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 Flash runs a cached coding session for $0.71 against $2.40 on Claude Sonnet 5, on introductory rates that end December 31, 2026.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Claude Opus 5.5 costs 6.2x as much as Gemini 3.8 Flash on a cached coding session at Flash's introductory rates. What changes in 2027, and where each fits.

GPT vs Gemini

11 comparisons

  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    GPT-5.3-Codex and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview cost within 4% of each other on a cached coding session. Context size, output limits, and access set them apart.

  • GPT-5.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    GPT-5.5 costs 2.5x as much as Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on every rate and every workload. Where they differ instead: output limits, long prompts, and access.

  • GPT-5.6 Luna vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

    Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs 1.5x as much as GPT-5.6 Luna on a cached coding session, $0.34 against $0.22, and about twice as much on output-heavy work.

  • GPT-5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    GPT-5.6 Sol is on promotional rates and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is still in preview. On a cached coding session, Gemini costs $2.00 against $4.20.

  • GPT-5.6 Terra vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    GPT-5.6 Terra costs 3.1x as much as Gemini 3.8 Flash on a cached coding session, $2.20 against $0.71, and its listed 2027 rates stay below Terra's.

  • GPT-6 Astra vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    GPT-6 Astra costs 5.3x as much as Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on a cached coding session. How OpenAI's write premium, long-context tiers, and output caps compare.

  • GPT-6 Astra vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    GPT-6 Astra and Gemini 3.8 Flash launched a day apart at opposite ends of the price range, 14.8x apart on a cached coding session. What each is built for.

  • GPT-6 Luna vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 Flash costs 7.5x as much as GPT-6 Luna per token, and its introductory rates end December 31, 2026. A month of sessions: $11.55 vs $78.38.

  • GPT-6 Luna vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

    GPT-6 Luna lists a third of Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite's input rate and a fifth of its output rate. A month of cached coding sessions: $11.55 against $36.85.

  • GPT-6 Sol vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    GPT-6 Sol and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview both charge $2 input and $0.20 per cache hit. Which one costs less flips by workload, so limits and status decide.

  • GPT-6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 Flash costs a third of GPT-6 Sol on a cached coding session, at introductory rates that end December 31, 2026. How the gap changes after that.

Other makers vs Claude

17 comparisons · DeepSeek, Z.ai, Moonshot AI, MiniMax, xAI, Alibaba Qwen, and Mistral AI

  • GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude Sonnet 5

    GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.16 for a cached coding session that costs $2.40 on Claude Sonnet 5. What drives a 15x gap, and what price alone can't tell you.

  • DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5

    Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4.40 for a cached coding session that costs $0.95 on DeepSeek-V4-Pro. Cache writes and output drive the gap; a V4.1 Pro is planned.

  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Claude Haiku 4.5

    DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash holds 5x the context of Claude Haiku 4.5 and costs $0.22 against $1.20 for a cached coding session. Haiku 4.5's successor is announced.

  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Claude Sonnet 5

    A cached coding session costs $0.22 on DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and $2.40 on Claude Sonnet 5. Where the 10.9x gap comes from, and what open weights change.

  • GLM-5.3 vs Claude Sonnet 5

    GLM-5.3 undercuts Claude Sonnet 5 by 40% on an agentic coding session, $1.44 against $2.40. Most of it comes from Anthropic's cache-write premium.

  • GLM-5.3 vs Claude Opus 5.5

    GLM-5.3 costs about a third of Claude Opus 5.5 on an agentic coding session, $1.44 against $4.40, yet its cache hits cost more. Where the gap comes from.

  • GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude Haiku 4.5

    GLM-5.3-Flash charges $0.50 per million output tokens against $5 on Claude Haiku 4.5, and $0.16 against $1.20 for a cached coding session. Where each fits.

  • Grok 4.7 vs Claude Opus 5.5

    Grok 4.7 costs $2.30 on a cached coding session against $4.40 on Claude Opus 5.5, but its window is 500K, not 1M, and prompts from 200K cost double.

  • Grok 4.7 vs Claude Sonnet 5

    Grok 4.7 and Claude Sonnet 5 both charge $2 per million input tokens. A cached coding session costs $2.30 against $2.40, but output-heavy work splits wider.

  • Grok Build 0.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5

    Grok Build 0.1 costs $1.00 per cached coding session against $2.40 on Claude Sonnet 5, but it is in early access, with a 256K window and a price step at 200K.

  • DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs Claude Sonnet 5

    DeepSeek-V4-Pro costs $0.95 for a cached coding session that costs $2.40 on Claude Sonnet 5, and cache writes explain most of it. Rates, limits, and tools.

  • Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 5.5

    Kimi K3 lists 25% below Claude Opus 5.5 on input and output, and the gap widens to 35% on a cached coding session. Cache writes, not hits, explain it.

  • Kimi K3 vs Claude Sonnet 5

    Kimi K3 lists 1.5x the rates of Claude Sonnet 5, yet an agentic coding session costs just $0.45 more on it, $2.85 against $2.40. Cache writes explain why.

  • MiniMax M3 vs Claude Sonnet 5

    MiniMax M3 costs $0.33 per cached coding session against $2.40 on Claude Sonnet 5. Both have a 1M window, and they differ on tools, caching, and long prompts.

  • Mistral Medium 3.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5

    Mistral Medium 3.5 lists rates 25% below Claude Sonnet 5, yet a cached coding session costs 40% less, $1.43 against $2.40. Cache writes explain the difference.

  • Qwen3.8-Max vs Claude Sonnet 5

    Qwen3.8-Max and Claude Sonnet 5 both charge $2 per million input tokens. Output and cache writes set them apart: $1.80 against $2.40 per coding session.

  • Qwen3.8-Max vs Claude Opus 5.5

    Qwen3.8-Max costs $1.80 on an agentic coding session against $4.40 on Claude Opus 5.5. Both are closed API models, and cache writes drive most of the gap.

Other makers vs GPT

12 comparisons · DeepSeek, Z.ai, Moonshot AI, MiniMax, xAI, Alibaba Qwen, and Mistral AI

  • DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs GPT-6 Sol

    DeepSeek-V4-Pro costs $0.95 for a cached coding session against $2.10 on GPT-6 Sol. How the gap forms, and what DeepSeek's Codex support does and doesn't mean.

  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs GPT-5.6 Luna

    DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and GPT-5.6 Luna both price a cached coding session at $0.22, from opposite ends: Luna's cheaper input, DeepSeek's cheaper cache hits.

  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs GPT-6 Luna

    GPT-6 Luna undercuts DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash at list prices, $0.11 against $0.22 for a cached coding session. How cache pricing and off-peak hours move the gap.

  • GLM-5.3 vs GPT-6 Sol

    GLM-5.3 costs 31% less than GPT-6 Sol on an agentic coding session, $1.44 against $2.10. How OpenAI's write fee and 272K rule compare with Z.ai's rates.

  • GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-6 Luna

    GPT-6 Luna and GLM-5.3-Flash share a $0.50 output rate, yet a cached coding session costs $0.11 on Luna and $0.16 on GLM-5.3-Flash. Cache hits explain why.

  • Grok 4.7 vs GPT-6 Sol

    Grok 4.7 and GPT-6 Sol launched a day apart at $2 input. GPT-6 Sol wins a cached session, $2.10 to $2.30. Grok 4.7 wins uncached and output-heavy work.

  • Grok Build 0.1 vs GPT-6 Luna

    GPT-6 Luna charges a tenth of Grok Build 0.1's input price, and a cached coding session costs $0.11 against $1.00. What each model is for, and where it runs.

  • Kimi K3 vs GPT-6 Sol

    GPT-6 Sol undercuts Kimi K3 on every rate, and an agentic coding session costs $2.10 against $2.85. Both list 1.05M context, with different limits inside.

  • Kimi K3 vs GPT-6 Astra

    GPT-6 Astra costs 3.3x Kimi K3 per token and 3.7x on an agentic coding session, $10.50 against $2.85. What each maker claims for its top model.

  • MiniMax M3 vs GPT-6 Luna

    GPT-6 Luna costs $0.11 per cached coding session against $0.33 on MiniMax M3. Where the 3x gap comes from, and what MiniMax M3 offers in return.

  • Mistral Medium 3.5 vs GPT-6 Sol

    Mistral Medium 3.5 undercuts GPT-6 Sol by 25% per token and 32% on a cached coding session. The trade-offs: a 256K window, preview status, and fewer tools.

  • Qwen3.8-Max vs GPT-6 Sol

    Qwen3.8-Max and GPT-6 Sol list the same $2 input rate, and an agentic coding session differs by $0.30. How output, cache writes, and Codex shape the choice.

Other makers vs Gemini

7 comparisons · DeepSeek, Z.ai, MiniMax, xAI, and Mistral AI

  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs $0.22 for a cached coding session that costs $0.71 on Gemini 3.8 Flash, and Gemini's introductory rates end December 31, 2026.

  • GLM-5.3 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    Neither Z.ai nor Google charges extra to write the cache, so GLM-5.3 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview split on output: $4.40 against $12 per million tokens.

  • GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.16 for a cached coding session against $0.71 on Gemini 3.8 Flash, whose introductory rates end December 31, 2026. What else differs.

  • Grok 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    Grok 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview both charge $2 input and raise rates at 200K tokens. Gemini costs less on a cached session, Grok on output-heavy work.

  • Grok Build 0.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 Flash costs $0.71 per cached coding session against $1.00 on Grok Build 0.1, until its introductory rates end on December 31, 2026.

  • MiniMax M3 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    MiniMax M3 costs $0.33 per cached coding session against $0.71 on Gemini 3.8 Flash, whose introductory rates end on December 31, 2026.

  • Mistral Medium 3.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 Flash costs half as much as Mistral Medium 3.5 on every rate until December 31, 2026. From January 1, 2027, their list prices match to the cent.

Other makers compared

12 comparisons · DeepSeek, Z.ai, Moonshot AI, MiniMax, xAI, and Alibaba Qwen

  • DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs GLM-5.3

    DeepSeek-V4-Pro and GLM-5.3 list input and output within 11% of each other, but a DeepSeek cache hit costs $0.044 against $0.26. What that does to a session.

  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs DeepSeek-V4-Pro

    DeepSeek says DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash outperforms its own DeepSeek-V4-Pro, which costs 4.3x as much per coding session. What Pro still offers, and what comes next.

  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash

    GLM-5.3-Flash lists half DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash's input price, but GLM's cache hits cost 5x as much. A cached coding session: $0.16 against $0.22 at peak.

  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs MiniMax M3

    DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and MiniMax M3 list the same $0.30 input and $1.20 output rates, but MiniMax's cache hits cost 10x as much: $0.33 vs $0.22 a session.

  • GLM-5.3 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

    GLM-5.3-Flash costs about a ninth of GLM-5.3 at Z.ai's rates: $0.16 against $1.44 for an agentic coding session. Same limits, same caching, different jobs.

  • Grok 4.7 vs Grok Build 0.1

    Grok Build 0.1 costs $1.00 per cached coding session against $2.30 on Grok 4.7. Both follow xAI's caching and 200K rules; they differ on window and status.

  • Grok 4.7 vs Kimi K3

    Grok 4.7 and Kimi K3 both run in Cursor and GitHub Copilot. Grok 4.7 costs less on every workload, while Kimi K3 adds open weights and a 1.05M window.

  • Kimi K3 vs DeepSeek-V4-Pro

    An agentic coding session costs $2.85 on Kimi K3 and $0.95 on DeepSeek-V4-Pro at peak rates, and DeepSeek's off-peak hours cost 50% less again.

  • Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.3

    Kimi K3 and GLM-5.3 are both open-weight flagships. A coding session costs $2.85 on Kimi K3 and $1.44 on GLM-5.3, yet their cache hits nearly match.

  • MiniMax M3 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

    GLM-5.3-Flash costs about half as much as MiniMax M3 on every line, $0.16 against $0.33 per cached coding session. Output limits and licenses differ too.

  • Qwen3.8-Max vs GLM-5.3

    GLM-5.3 costs $1.44 per cached coding session against $1.80 on Qwen3.8-Max, even though cache hits cost about the same. Rates, caching, weights, and tools.

  • Qwen3.8-Max vs Kimi K3

    Qwen3.8-Max undercuts Kimi K3 on every rate, $1.80 against $2.85 for an agentic coding session. Kimi K3 has open weights; the Qwen3.8-Max API model does not.

Claude lineup

11 comparisons

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Fable 5

    Claude Fable 5.1 keeps Claude Fable 5's rates but cuts a cache hit from $1 to $0.25 per million. What that saves on agentic sessions, and what it doesn't.

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Mythos 5.1

    Claude Mythos 5.1 is Claude Fable 5.1 with more permissive safeguards and invitation-only access. Prices match, down to $0.25 per million for a cache hit.

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5

    Claude Fable 5.1 lists at 2.5x the rates of Claude Opus 5.5. What that premium buys, why cheap cache hits barely narrow it, and when Anthropic suggests it.

  • Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5

    Claude Fable 5.1 lists at 5x the rates of Claude Sonnet 5, but cache hits cost $0.25 against $0.20. Why sessions cost 4.4x, and who Anthropic aims Fable 5.1 at.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8

    Claude Opus 5.5 lists 20% below Claude Opus 4.8 and bills cache hits at $0.20, not $0.50. What staying costs, and when Anthropic still recommends Opus 4.8.

  • Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8

    Claude Opus 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 cost exactly the same, from $5 input to $0.50 cache hits. How Anthropic positions each, and what it now recommends instead.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Haiku 4.5

    Claude Opus 5.5 lists at 4x the rates of Claude Haiku 4.5, yet a cached coding session costs 3.7x. Context and output limits, and Haiku 4.5's retirement date.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5

    Claude Opus 5.5 is 20% cheaper per token than Claude Opus 5, and cache hits cost 60% less. What that means for Claude Code sessions, and what stays the same.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5

    Claude Opus 5.5 costs twice as much per token as Claude Sonnet 5, yet cache hits cost $0.20 on both. What that means for agentic coding sessions.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs Claude Haiku 4.5

    Claude Haiku 4.5 costs half as much as Claude Sonnet 5, with a 200K context window and a retirement date ahead. When the cheaper model fits a coding workflow.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

    Claude Sonnet 5 costs 33% less per token than Claude Sonnet 4.6, but its tokenizer counts up to 1.35x as many tokens. What the upgrade saves in practice.

GPT lineup

13 comparisons

  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs GPT-5.2-Codex

    GPT-5.3-Codex and GPT-5.2-Codex cost the same to the cent. What differs is what OpenAI claims for each and where you can still run them in 2026.

  • GPT-5.4 vs GPT-5.3-Codex

    GPT-5.3-Codex is cheaper per token but takes 272K input tokens at most. GPT-5.4 reaches 1.05M, at higher rates past 272K. Which one fits your codebase.

  • GPT-5.5 vs GPT-5.4

    GPT-5.5 costs exactly twice GPT-5.4 on every rate, and both are leaving Codex sign-in. What the 2x gap means for API users and where Codex points instead.

  • GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-5.5

    GPT-5.6 Sol cuts GPT-5.5's rates but adds a 1.25x charge for cache writes. Why the session gap is 16%, not 20%, and what changes on October 14.

  • GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Terra

    GPT-5.6 Sol costs about twice GPT-5.6 Terra, on promotional rates. How Terra's output price narrows the gap and why Codex points both to GPT-6 Sol.

  • GPT-5.6 Terra vs GPT-5.6 Luna

    GPT-5.6 Terra costs 10x GPT-5.6 Luna on every rate after OpenAI's July 30 price cuts. What each tier is for, and why Codex now sends them different ways.

  • GPT-6 Astra vs GPT-5.5

    GPT-6 Astra doubles GPT-5.5's input price and adds a 1.25x cache-write charge GPT-5.5 never had. What that does to agentic sessions and to Codex.

  • GPT-6 Astra vs GPT-6 Luna

    GPT-6 Astra and GPT-6 Luna sit at opposite ends of OpenAI's lineup, 100x apart per token. What each is for, and where GPT-6 Sol fits between them.

  • GPT-6 Astra vs GPT-6 Sol

    GPT-6 Astra costs 5x as much as GPT-6 Sol on every token, cached or not. What OpenAI built each for, which one Codex picks, and what a session costs.

  • GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Sol

    GPT-6 Sol costs half as much as GPT-5.6 Sol on every rate, and Codex suggests the move. What changes, what the promo pricing means, and what stays put.

  • GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Terra

    GPT-6 Sol matches GPT-5.6 Terra's input and cache prices and charges less for output. What that means for coding sessions and the move Codex suggests.

  • GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-6 Luna

    GPT-6 Luna costs a twentieth of GPT-6 Sol per token. What OpenAI and the Codex docs say each tier is for, and what the gap means for coding sessions.

  • GPT-6 Luna vs GPT-5.6 Luna

    GPT-6 Luna halves the input price of GPT-5.6 Luna, which already had an 80% cut, and trims output further. What the move saves, and what Codex suggests.

Gemini lineup

8 comparisons