A common reading of capabilities, access, context, price and verification date.
| Criterion | GPT‑6 Astra | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Claude Opus 5.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity and validity | |||
| Organization | OpenAI | Anthropic | |
| API ID | gpt-6-astra | gemini-3.8-flash | claude-opus-5-5 |
| State | Available | Stable GA | Asset |
| Model type | Text and reasoning | Text and reasoning | Text and reasoning |
| Types | Text and reasoning | Text and reasoning | Text and reasoning · Code |
| Release | September 3, 2026 | September 2, 2026 | 22 SEP 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | April 30, 2026 | Not published in the source consulted | JUN 2026 |
| Profile | Generalist frontier | Fast multimodal | Agentic coding and knowledge work |
| Capacity and modalities | |||
| Entrance | Text · Image | Text · Image · Video · Audio · PDF | Text · Image |
| Exit | Text | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,050,000 tokens | 1,048,576 entry tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 65,536 output tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | low, medium, high, xhigh, and max effort | low, medium, and high levels | Adaptive thinking · configurable effort |
| Relative latency | Moderate; depends on reasoning effort | Flash profile focused on speed and efficiency | Moderate |
| Tools and integration | |||
| Published tools | Features · Web search · File search · Code interpreter · Hosted shell · Computer use · MCP | Features · Web search · Google Maps · Code execution · Computer use (preview) · File search · URL context | Use of tools · Web search · Code execution · Computer use |
| Structured Outings | Supported | Supported | Supported |
| Batch processing | Compatible · 50% discount | Compatible · 50% discount | Compatible · 50% discount |
| Prompt cache | Supported | Supported | Supported |
| Fine-tuning | Not compatible | Not published in the source consulted | Not published |
| Standard API price | |||
| Entrance price | 10.00 USD / 1 M tokens | 0.75 USD / 1M tokens | 4,00 USD / 1 M tokens |
| Cached input | 1.00 USD / 1 M tokens | 0.075 USD / 1 M tokens | 0,20 USD / 1 M tokens |
| Cache write or storage | 12.50 USD / 1 M tokens | 0.50 USD / 1 M tokens per hour of storage | 5.00 USD / 1 M tokens |
| Starting price | 50.00 USD / 1 M tokens | 3.75 USD / 1M tokens | 20,00 USD / 1 M tokens |
| Batch input | 5.00 USD / 1 M tokens | 0.375 USD / 1 M tokens | Not published |
| Batch output | 25.00 USD / 1 M tokens | 1.875 USD / 1 M tokens | Not published |
| Relevant conditions | Requests with more than 272,000 input tokens apply price multipliers; tools may add per-call charges. | Introductory pricing until December 31, 2026; from 2027, standard rates double. | Consult the primary source before budgeting for a deployment. |
| Availability | |||
| Access model | Paid proprietary | Paid proprietary | Paid proprietary |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Deployment | Hosted API | Hosted API | Hosted API |
| Access channels | OpenAI API · Responses, Chat Completions, and Batch | Gemini API · Google AI Studio · stable version | Claude API and associated clouds |
| Verified platforms | OpenAI API | Gemini API · Google AI Studio | Claude API · Amazon Bedrock · Google Cloud · Microsoft Foundry |
| Published benchmarks | |||
| Terminal-Bench Science 0.1 | 64,6 %Accuracy · Check the conditions in the linked source.View source ↗ | No comparable result published | No comparable result published |
| GPQA Diamond | 96,0 %Accuracy · Check the conditions in the linked source.View source ↗ | No comparable result published | No comparable result published |
| BenchCAD | 95,9 %Geometric overlap · Check the conditions in the linked source.View source ↗ | No comparable result published | No comparable result published |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence v4.1 | No comparable result published | 50,2Index · Check the conditions in the linked source.View source ↗ | No comparable result published |
| GDPval-AA v2 | No comparable result published | 1.348,8Elo · Check the conditions in the linked source.View source ↗ | No comparable result published |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 | No comparable result published | No comparable result published | 66,4 %Accuracy · Check the conditions in the linked source.View source ↗ |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | No comparable result published | No comparable result published | 1.846Elo · Check the conditions in the linked source.View source ↗ |
| Verified | |||
| Primary source | Official GPT‑6 Astra page ↗ | Official Gemini 3.8 Flash model profile ↗ | Official documentation ↗ |
i «Not published» indicates that the primary sources consulted do not provide that data. Inferama does not fill gaps with estimates.
i Benchmarks retain the published metric and conditions. A score obtained with tools, more attempts, a different task set, or a different harness is not a direct comparison.
A request with 1 million input tokens and 250,000 output tokens, without caching or tools.
i It is an arithmetic example, not a cost estimate per task. Reasoning, caching, tools, retries, and context tiers may change the bill.
The most capable model is not always the most suitable system for a specific workflow.
First rule out what does not support your modality, context, tool, region, or maximum budget.
Compare quality, latency, error rate, and recovery using real cases and a stable rubric.
Include tool calls, searches, caching, oversight, retries, and the cost of correcting failures.
Prices and limits change. Check the date and open the primary source before signing up or migrating.
Technical documentation, pricing, status, and transparency for each provider.
A technical analysis of the operational viability of running and comparing Bolmo 1B Stage 1 and Bolmo 7B Stage 1 in local environments. This piece defines a decision framework based on hardware requirements, data isolation, and inference costs, distinguishing between confirmed specifications and metrics that require empirical validation.
15 Oct 2026 ↗
There are no verified results from a shared test of these models on query classification, extraction, and escalation. This guide proposes a reproducible protocol for comparing them without confusing general benchmarks with operational results.
05 Oct 2026 ↗
There are no results from a controlled comparison here that would support declaring a winner. What we can offer is a reproducible protocol for measuring patch quality, regressions, cost, and time under shared conditions—and for deciding what evidence a team needs before choosing.
28 Sep 2026 ↗
A modular chain built from speech recognition, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, and Eleven v3 is not equivalent to a full-duplex voice model. This guide proposes comparing both systems end to end, without declaring a winner based on isolated specifications.
26 Sep 2026 ↗
A useful comparison between DeepSeek R1 and DeepSeek V3.2 does not begin with a published benchmark, but with an organization’s own task, a frozen corpus, and an explicit definition of material error. This protocol makes it possible to measure whether R1’s additional deliberation reduces errors and human review, or whether V3.2 reaches the same threshold with lower latency, consumption, and complexity.
22 Sep 2026 ↗
Changing models does not necessarily improve an enterprise assistant. This comparison proposes a reproducible protocol to determine whether Command A+ delivers a net improvement over Command R 08-2024 when both operate on the same corpus, retriever, output contract, and human review process.
22 Sep 2026 ↗