AI Model Benchmarks & Pricing: May 2026

The definitive benchmark and cost comparison for every frontier AI model, updated for May 2026.

Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 94.3% on GPQA Diamond. Claude Opus 4.7 tops the Chatbot Arena at 1500+ ELO. GPT-5.5 charges $30 per million output tokens at its highest tier. DeepSeek V4 Flash costs $0.14 per million input tokens, roughly 35x cheaper than OpenAI's flagship. The spread between the cheapest and most expensive frontier model has never been wider, and the performance gap between them has never been narrower.

This is the problem every engineering team, product builder, and business operator faces right now: the AI model market has fractured into dozens of competitive options, each with different pricing structures, benchmark strengths, context window sizes, and multimodal capabilities. Choosing the wrong model does not just cost money. It costs performance, latency, and competitive advantage. Choosing based on brand name alone means overpaying by 10x to 100x for workloads that a cheaper model handles equally well.

This guide provides one thing that does not exist anywhere else: a single, unified table comparing every major AI model across the benchmarks that matter and the costs that add up, all normalized to the same unit (per million tokens), all verified against official sources, all current as of May 2026.

Written by Yuma Heymans (@yumahey), who builds autonomous AI agent systems at O-mega and evaluates model performance across production workloads daily.

Contents

1. The Master Table: Every Model, Benchmarked and Priced
2. How to Read the Table: What Each Benchmark Measures
3. The Pricing Landscape: What Intelligence Actually Costs
4. Benchmark Deep Dives: Who Wins Where
5. The Cost-Performance Frontier: Best Value Models
6. Provider Profiles: The Full Breakdown
7. Open-Source vs Closed-Source: The Economic Divide
8. Context Windows and Long-Context Performance
9. The Multimodal Gap: Vision, Audio, and Beyond
10. How to Choose: A Decision Framework
11. What Changed Since January 2026
12. Where This Is Heading

---

1. The Master Table: Every Model, Benchmarked and Priced

This is the core of the guide. One table. Every major model. Benchmarks across the columns, costs in consistent units (per million tokens) on the right side. Models are sorted by Arena ELO where available, then by GPQA Diamond score as a tiebreaker. A dash (-) means the benchmark was not reported by the provider or is not applicable.

Benchmark abbreviations: MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding), GPQA-D (Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA, Diamond set), SWE-b (SWE-bench Verified, real-world coding), AIME (American Invitational Mathematics Examination), HLE (Humanity's Last Exam), Arena (Chatbot Arena ELO, May 2026).

Cost columns: All prices in USD per 1 million tokens. Input = prompt tokens sent to the model. Output = completion tokens generated. Ctx = maximum context window in thousands of tokens. V = vision/multimodal support (Y/N).

This table is the reference point for everything that follows. Each section below unpacks a different dimension of this comparison: what the benchmarks actually measure, where each provider wins and loses, and how to map these numbers to your specific use case.

For deeper analysis of individual models, we have published dedicated guides on Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and DeepSeek V4 that go much deeper into each model's architecture and practical performance.

---

2. How to Read the Table: What Each Benchmark Measures

The benchmarks in the master table are not interchangeable. Each one tests a fundamentally different capability, and understanding what they measure is essential for interpreting the scores correctly. A model that dominates AIME but underperforms on SWE-bench is not "better" or "worse" in any absolute sense. It is better at mathematical reasoning and worse at navigating real codebases with complex dependencies. These are different skills that matter to different workloads.

The reason we selected these six benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA Diamond, SWE-bench Verified, AIME, Humanity's Last Exam, and Chatbot Arena ELO) is that they span the full spectrum from broad knowledge to narrow expertise, from static evaluation to live human preference, and from theoretical problem-solving to practical software engineering. Together, they give a more complete picture than any single benchmark could.

MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding)

MMLU tests breadth of knowledge across 57 academic subjects, from abstract algebra to world religions. It has been the default "general intelligence" benchmark since 2021, and most providers still report it. However, MMLU scores above 85% have become nearly meaningless as a differentiator. The gap between a 90% and a 92% tells you almost nothing about real-world performance. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 92.6%, but the practical difference between that and DeepSeek R1's 90.8% is negligible for most applications.

The more informative variant is MMLU-Pro, which adds harder questions and penalizes guessing more aggressively. DeepSeek R1 scores 84.0% on MMLU-Pro, while Llama 4 Maverick scores 80.5%. These numbers have more signal because the test is harder and the score distribution is wider.

GPQA Diamond (Graduate-Level Science)

GPQA Diamond is a dataset of 448 questions written by domain experts in physics, chemistry, and biology, specifically designed so that non-experts cannot answer them even with internet access. This makes it one of the purest tests of deep scientific reasoning. When Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 94.3% on GPQA Diamond, it means the model can reason through graduate-level science problems that stumped PhD students outside their specialization - Google DeepMind. The gap between Gemini 3.1 Pro (94.3%) and DeepSeek R1 (71.5%) on this benchmark is enormous and meaningful. For scientific research applications, coding biology pipelines, or any workload involving deep domain expertise, GPQA Diamond is the benchmark to watch.

SWE-bench Verified (Real-World Coding)

SWE-bench Verified asks models to solve actual GitHub issues from popular open-source repositories like Django, Flask, and scikit-learn. The model receives the issue description and must produce a working patch that passes the project's test suite. This is the closest benchmark we have to measuring real-world software engineering capability. It tests not just code generation but code comprehension, debugging, understanding existing test infrastructure, and producing minimal, correct patches.

The current leaders are remarkably close: Claude Opus 4.6 at 81.4%, Gemini 3.1 Pro at 80.6%, and Claude Sonnet 4 at 80.2% (with prompt modification). GPT-5 sits at 74.9%. DeepSeek R1 is far behind at 49.2%. If your primary use case is AI-assisted coding, SWE-bench Verified is the single most important number in the table. As we explored in our guide to AI coding agents, this benchmark has become the industry standard for evaluating coding capability.

AIME (Mathematical Reasoning)

The American Invitational Mathematics Examination is a competition-level math test that requires multi-step reasoning, creative problem-solving, and the ability to combine different mathematical techniques. AIME problems cannot be solved by pattern matching or lookup. They require genuine mathematical reasoning chains.

OpenAI's o3 leads here with 96.7% on AIME 2024, followed by GPT-5 at 94.6% on AIME 2025 (a harder set), and Gemini 2.5 Pro at 92.0%. The reasoning models (o3, o4-mini) tend to outperform general-purpose models on AIME because they can spend more compute on each problem through chain-of-thought reasoning.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE)

HLE is the newest and hardest benchmark on this list. It consists of 3,000 questions contributed by experts across dozens of fields, designed to be answerable by humans but extremely challenging for AI. The name is deliberately provocative: the creators intended it to be "the last exam that AI cannot pass." As of May 2026, no model breaks 50%. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 44.4%, followed by GPT-5.5 at 42.0% - Scale AI. This benchmark matters because it shows where the frontier actually is. Below 50% means models are still guessing on a significant portion of expert-level questions.

Chatbot Arena ELO (Live Human Preference)

Unlike the other benchmarks, Chatbot Arena is not a fixed test. It is a live platform where humans have blind conversations with two anonymous models and vote for the one they prefer. ELO ratings emerge from hundreds of thousands of these comparisons. This makes Arena ELO the most "real-world" benchmark: it captures not just correctness but helpfulness, formatting, tone, instruction-following, and every other factor that determines whether a human actually prefers one model's output over another.

Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking mode) currently leads at 1502 ELO, closely followed by Opus 4.7 (thinking) at 1500 and standard Opus 4.6 at 1498 - Arena.ai. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview sits at 1489, and GPT-5.5 (high) at 1484. The clustering of scores at the top tells an important story: at the frontier, human preferences barely distinguish between the top models. The gap between #1 and #10 is just 23 ELO points, which is within statistical noise for many comparison types.

The key insight from the diagram above is that performance on knowledge benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA) correlates only weakly with performance on practical tasks (SWE-bench, AIME). A model can score 92% on MMLU and still fail to write a correct Django patch. This is why no single benchmark tells the whole story, and why the master table includes all six dimensions.

---

3. The Pricing Landscape: What Intelligence Actually Costs

The economics of AI inference have shifted dramatically in the first five months of 2026. The most striking trend is not that prices have dropped (they have, but that has been true for years). The striking trend is the decoupling of price from performance. In 2024, the most expensive model was almost always the best model. In May 2026, that correlation has broken.

Gemini 3.1 Pro delivers the highest GPQA Diamond score (94.3%) at $2.00/$12.00 per million tokens. Claude Opus 4.7 tops the Arena ELO at $5.00/$25.00. GPT-5.5 charges $5.00/$30.00 and sits 15+ ELO points behind Opus 4.7 on human preference. At the budget end, DeepSeek V4 Flash costs $0.14/$0.28 and still handles most production workloads competently. The question is no longer "which model is best?" but "which model delivers sufficient quality for my specific use case at the lowest cost?"

This decoupling has structural causes. Google subsidizes Gemini pricing to drive Cloud Platform adoption. DeepSeek uses a mixture-of-experts architecture that activates only a fraction of total parameters per inference, dramatically reducing compute costs. Meta gives Llama 4 away for free because their business model is not API revenue. These are not temporary discounts. They are strategic pricing decisions backed by fundamentally different business models. We analyzed this dynamic in depth in our AI market power consolidation report.

The Three Pricing Tiers

The market has organized itself into three distinct pricing tiers, and understanding which tier your workload falls into determines whether you spend $100 or $10,000 per month on the same volume of inference.

Tier 1: Premium Flagships ($5-30/M output). GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5 Pro. These models target workloads where quality is non-negotiable and cost is secondary: legal analysis, medical reasoning, financial modeling, complex agentic tasks. At GPT-5.5 Pro's $180/M output rate, processing 10 million output tokens costs $1,800. That is a meaningful expense, but for a hedge fund generating trade analysis or a pharmaceutical company screening drug interactions, the cost of a wrong answer dwarfs the cost of inference.

Tier 2: Performance Sweet Spot ($1-12/M output). Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5, o3, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Haiku 4.5, Grok 4.3. This tier offers 80-95% of frontier quality at 20-50% of the price. Gemini 3.1 Pro is the standout here: it matches or exceeds Opus 4.7 on most benchmarks at less than half the output cost. For production applications where quality matters but budgets exist, Tier 2 is where the action is.

Tier 3: Budget Workhorses ($0.14-2.50/M output). DeepSeek V4 Flash, Llama 4 Scout/Maverick, Mistral Large 3, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Qwen 3.6 Plus. These models handle high-volume workloads where per-token cost dominates: content moderation, summarization, classification, data extraction, chatbot responses. DeepSeek V4 Flash at $0.28/M output can process the same 10 million output tokens for $2.80. That is 643x cheaper than GPT-5.5 Pro.

The spread between these tiers is not gradual. It is discontinuous. The jump from Tier 3 to Tier 2 is roughly 5-10x. The jump from Tier 2 to Tier 1 is another 2-5x. Choosing the wrong tier for your workload is the most expensive mistake you can make in AI infrastructure.

Hidden Costs: Caching, Batching, and Reasoning Tokens

The per-million-token prices in the master table are list prices. Actual costs can be significantly lower or significantly higher depending on three factors.

Prompt caching reduces input costs by 75-90% across all major providers. If your application sends similar prompts repeatedly (chatbots with system prompts, RAG pipelines with static context, agents with tool definitions), cached tokens cost a fraction of fresh tokens. Anthropic's prompt caching reduces cached input to $0.50/M instead of $5.00/M for Opus 4.7 - Anthropic Pricing. OpenAI offers similar discounts. For high-volume production workloads, caching can reduce total costs by 50-70%.

Batch processing cuts all token costs by 50% with every major provider. If your workload tolerates latency (processing overnight, generating reports, analyzing documents in bulk), batch mode halves your bill. OpenAI calls it "Flex API," Anthropic calls it "Batch API," but the economics are identical - OpenAI Pricing.

Reasoning tokens can multiply costs by 5-50x for reasoning models. OpenAI's o3 and o4-mini, and Anthropic's "thinking" mode, generate internal reasoning tokens that count toward your output bill. A query that produces 500 visible output tokens might consume 10,000 reasoning tokens behind the scenes. This means the effective cost of an o3 query can be 10-20x the naive per-token calculation. The master table shows list prices per million tokens. For reasoning models, multiply output costs by your expected reasoning-to-output ratio.

As we detailed in our cost of AI agents report, the total cost of running an AI system in production goes well beyond raw token pricing. Orchestration overhead, retry logic, tool-calling loops, and context window management all add multipliers on top of the base model cost.

---

4. Benchmark Deep Dives: Who Wins Where

No single model wins everywhere. The frontier has fragmented into specialized strengths, and understanding which model dominates which capability is the difference between a well-architected system and a brute-force approach that overpays for irrelevant quality.

Coding: Claude and Gemini Lead, DeepSeek Lags

The SWE-bench Verified leaderboard tells a clear story. Anthropic's Claude models have invested heavily in software engineering capability, and it shows. Claude Opus 4.6 leads at 81.42% (with prompt modification), followed closely by Gemini 3.1 Pro at 80.6% and Claude Sonnet 4 at 80.2%. GPT-5 is competitive at 74.9% but notably behind the leaders. DeepSeek R1, despite its strength in math and reasoning, scores only 49.2% on SWE-bench, making it a poor choice for code-heavy workloads.

The practical implication is significant. For AI-powered coding tools, IDE integrations, and automated code review systems, Claude and Gemini deliver measurably better results. The 7-point gap between Claude Opus 4.6 (81.4%) and GPT-5 (74.9%) translates to roughly one in seven additional real-world coding problems solved correctly. Over thousands of developer interactions per day, that compounds into substantial productivity differences.

What makes the coding benchmark results particularly interesting is the architectural difference between winners and losers. Claude and Gemini both have 1M+ token context windows, which allows them to ingest entire codebases before generating patches. DeepSeek R1's 128K context window limits how much code context it can process simultaneously, which partially explains its lower SWE-bench scores. Context window size is not just a feature checkbox. For coding tasks, it directly correlates with benchmark performance because real codebases are large. For more on how coding agents leverage these capabilities, see our long-running coding agents guide.

Science and Reasoning: Google Dominates

On GPQA Diamond, the story is straightforward: Gemini 3.1 Pro at 94.3% is in a class of its own. The next closest models are OpenAI's o3 at 87.7% and GPT-5 at 87.3% (with tools). Claude Opus 4 scores 83.3% in high-compute mode. The gap between Gemini 3.1 Pro and the field (6.6 percentage points over the next best) is the largest performance gap on any benchmark in this comparison.

This dominance extends to Humanity's Last Exam, where Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 44.4% compared to GPT-5.5's 42.0%. The gap is smaller here, but Google's lead on expert-level reasoning is consistent across evaluations. For scientific research applications, pharmaceutical R&D, materials science exploration, and any workload requiring deep domain expertise, Gemini 3.1 Pro is the clear choice, and it achieves this at a lower price point ($2/$12) than either Claude Opus ($5/$25) or GPT-5.5 ($5/$30).

We covered Gemini 3.1 Pro's scientific capabilities in detail in our complete guide, including benchmarks on specialized medical, legal, and financial reasoning tasks.

Mathematics: OpenAI's Reasoning Models Excel

AIME scores reveal a clear winner: OpenAI's reasoning models. o3 scores 96.7% on AIME 2024, GPT-5 scores 94.6% on AIME 2025 (a harder variant), and Gemini 2.5 Pro scores 92.0% on AIME 2024. Claude Opus 4 reaches 90.0% in high-compute mode. DeepSeek R1 scores 79.8%, and Llama 4 models do not report AIME scores.

The pattern here is important: dedicated reasoning compute (o3's chain-of-thought, Claude's extended thinking, Gemini's thinking mode) consistently outperforms standard inference on mathematical problems. o3 can spend variable amounts of compute per problem, and on AIME-level math, that extra compute pays off. The tradeoff is cost: o3's reasoning tokens multiply the effective price per query by 5-20x depending on problem difficulty.

For applications that require mathematical precision (financial modeling, actuarial calculations, physics simulations, engineering analysis), the reasoning models justify their premium. For general-purpose applications where occasional math is needed but not the primary workload, the standard models at 85-90% AIME accuracy are sufficient and dramatically cheaper.

Human Preference: Anthropic Leads, but the Gap Is Closing

The Chatbot Arena tells the most nuanced story. Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) leads at 1502 ELO, but the top 10 models are clustered within a 25-point band. This clustering means that for most conversational use cases, the differences between frontier models are imperceptible to users. The practical implication: if you are building a chatbot or conversational AI product, any Tier 1 or top Tier 2 model delivers essentially equivalent user satisfaction. Choose based on price and secondary factors (latency, API reliability, specific capability strengths), not Arena ELO.

The Arena also reveals an interesting pattern: thinking/reasoning modes consistently score higher than standard modes for the same model. Claude Opus 4.6 in thinking mode (1502) outscores standard mode (1498). This suggests that users prefer more thorough, step-by-step responses, even when they did not explicitly request chain-of-thought reasoning.

---

5. The Cost-Performance Frontier: Best Value Models

The most important question for production deployments is not "which model is best?" but "which model gives me the most performance per dollar?" This requires plotting models on a cost-performance frontier and identifying which ones sit on the efficient boundary (delivering the most capability for their price point) versus which ones are dominated (outperformed by cheaper alternatives).

The Frontier Analysis

When you plot Arena ELO against output cost per million tokens, three models stand out as being on the efficient frontier, meaning no other model offers better performance at the same or lower cost.

Gemini 3.1 Pro ($12/M output, 1489 ELO, 94.3% GPQA) is the single best value proposition at the frontier. It matches or exceeds Claude Opus 4.7 on most benchmarks at less than half the output cost. Unless you specifically need Anthropic's superior coding performance or OpenAI's mathematical reasoning edge, Gemini 3.1 Pro is the default choice for quality-sensitive production workloads.

Grok 4.3 ($2.50/M output, 1M context, vision) offers surprisingly strong capability at a price point that undercuts most competitors. At $1.25/$2.50 per million tokens, it is cheaper than Claude Haiku ($1.00/$5.00 output) while supporting a 1M context window and vision capabilities. xAI has not published extensive benchmark results, which makes independent evaluation difficult, but the price-to-feature ratio is compelling - xAI Pricing.

DeepSeek V4 Flash ($0.28/M output, 1M context) is the undisputed cost leader for bulk workloads. At 107x cheaper than GPT-5.5 on output tokens, it handles classification, summarization, extraction, and moderate-complexity generation tasks at costs that make per-query budgeting almost irrelevant. The tradeoff is clear: no vision support and no publicly reported benchmark scores on the standard suite. For workloads where text-in/text-out is sufficient and volume is high, nothing competes on price.

Models That Are Dominated

Several models in the table are "dominated," meaning another model offers better performance at the same or lower price. These are not bad models, but they are suboptimal choices for new deployments.

GPT-5.5 at $5.00/$30.00 is dominated by Gemini 3.1 Pro at $2.00/$12.00. Gemini 3.1 Pro beats GPT-5.5 on GPQA Diamond (94.3% vs unreported), matches it on Arena ELO (1489 vs 1484), offers a larger context window (2M vs 1M), and costs less than half as much. The only reason to choose GPT-5.5 over Gemini 3.1 Pro is ecosystem lock-in (existing OpenAI integrations) or specific GPT-5.5 capabilities not captured by benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4 (standard, non-4.6/4.7) at $15.00/$75.00 is the most expensive model in the table and is dominated by its own successors. Opus 4.6 and 4.7 deliver better performance at $5.00/$25.00. If you are still using Claude Opus 4 in production, migrating to Opus 4.6 or 4.7 saves 67% with no quality loss.

Nova Premier at $2.50/$12.50 has no publicly reported benchmark scores and sits at a price point where Gemini 3.1 Pro ($2.00/$12.00) offers documented superior performance for less money. Amazon's Nova models serve a purpose within the AWS ecosystem (Bedrock integration, data residency guarantees), but on pure cost-performance, they are not competitive.

The chart above shows ELO points per dollar of output cost, a rough measure of value. DeepSeek V4 Pro is off the charts because its price is so low relative to its Arena performance (1434 ELO at just $0.87/M output). Gemini 3 Flash and GPT-5.4 also deliver exceptional value ratios. The premium flagships (Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5) deliver the lowest points-per-dollar because you are paying a steep premium for marginal quality improvements at the top of the leaderboard.

---

6. Provider Profiles: The Full Breakdown

Each AI lab brings a distinct strategy, architecture, and business model to the market. Understanding these differences helps explain the pricing and performance patterns in the master table, and helps predict where each provider is headed next.

OpenAI: The Broadest Portfolio

OpenAI runs the largest model portfolio of any provider, with at least 10 actively supported models spanning from GPT-4.1 Nano ($0.10/$0.40) to GPT-5.5 Pro ($30.00/$180.00). This breadth is a strategic advantage: developers can start with a cheap model and scale up to more powerful ones without switching providers or rewriting integrations.

The GPT-5.5 family, launched in April 2026, represents OpenAI's current flagship. It supports 1M token context, native vision, and what OpenAI describes as significantly reduced hallucination rates. The pricing at $5.00/$30.00 (standard) positions it as a premium offering, and the $30.00/$180.00 Pro tier targets research and enterprise workloads where cost is no object. As we analyzed in our GPT-5.5 benchmarks guide, the model's real-world performance justifies the premium for specific use cases but not as a general-purpose default.

OpenAI's reasoning models (o3, o4-mini) remain the strongest options for mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, with o3's 96.7% AIME score unmatched by any competitor. The tradeoff is the reasoning token overhead, which can multiply effective costs significantly.

The GPT-4.1 family occupies an interesting niche: long-context specialists at moderate prices. GPT-4.1 supports 1M tokens at $2.00/$8.00, and GPT-4.1 Nano offers the same context window at $0.10/$0.40, making it one of the cheapest ways to process extremely long documents.

Anthropic: Quality Leader, Premium Pricing

Anthropic's strategy is vertical: fewer models, each highly optimized for quality. The current lineup is just four models (Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6, Haiku 4.5), and every one of them performs at or near the top of its price class.

Claude Opus 4.7, released April 16, 2026, holds the #1 and #2 positions on the Chatbot Arena (in thinking and standard modes). It also achieves 70% on CursorBench (vs 58% for Opus 4.6), 90.9% on BigLaw Bench, and a remarkable 98.5% on XBOW visual-acuity (vs 54.5% for its predecessor) - Anthropic. The Opus 4.7 tokenizer change is worth noting: it generates up to 35% more tokens for the same text, which can increase effective per-request costs even though the per-token price is unchanged.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 at $3.00/$15.00 is the workhorse model that most production deployments should consider. It sits at 1454 Arena ELO, which is competitive with GPT-5.5 (1474) at half the output cost. For workloads that do not need the absolute frontier, Sonnet 4.6 delivers 95% of the quality at 50% of the price.

Claude Haiku 4.5 at $1.00/$5.00 competes directly with OpenAI's o4-mini ($1.10/$4.40) and Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.30/$2.50). It is the most expensive "budget" model across providers, reflecting Anthropic's positioning as the quality-premium brand.

Google: The Price-Performance King

Google's Gemini lineup is the most strategically aggressive in the market. Gemini 3.1 Pro at $2.00/$12.00 delivers the highest GPQA Diamond score (94.3%), the largest standard context window (2M tokens), and competitive Arena ELO (1489), all at a price that undercuts both OpenAI and Anthropic's flagships by 50-60%.

This pricing is not sustainable on a standalone basis. Google subsidizes Gemini to drive adoption of Google Cloud Platform, where the real revenue is in compute, storage, and enterprise services. For users, this subsidy is a gift. For competitors, it is an existential pressure on margins.

The Flash family extends this value further. Gemini 2.5 Flash at $0.30/$2.50 offers 1M context and vision at a price point that competes with open-source inference costs. The newest Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite at $0.25/$1.50 pushes this even lower. Google also applies a unique long-context surcharge: Gemini 3.1 Pro doubles its prices (to $4.00/$18.00) for prompts exceeding 200K tokens. This means the 2M context window is available but expensive to fully utilize - Google Gemini Pricing.

For a detailed breakdown of Gemini's budget model, see our Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite guide.

DeepSeek: The Cost Disruptor

DeepSeek has fundamentally changed the pricing conversation. The V4 Flash model at $0.14/$0.28 per million tokens is the cheapest production-grade model from any major provider. The V4 Pro at $0.44/$0.87 (currently discounted 75% until May 31) offers higher quality at prices still dramatically below Western competitors.

The cost structure is possible because of DeepSeek's mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture, which activates only a small fraction of the model's total parameters for each token. The V3 model, for example, has 671 billion total parameters but activates only 37 billion per token. This architectural choice reduces inference compute by roughly 10x compared to dense models of equivalent quality - DeepSeek GitHub.

DeepSeek R1, the reasoning model, scores 90.8% on MMLU and 97.3% on MATH-500, making it competitive with frontier models on knowledge and math benchmarks. But it scores only 49.2% on SWE-bench Verified and 71.5% on GPQA Diamond, revealing significant weaknesses in coding and deep scientific reasoning. The tradeoff is clear: DeepSeek is excellent value for general-purpose text tasks and math, but not a replacement for Claude or Gemini on coding or science workloads. Our DeepSeek V4 guide covers the full capabilities and limitations.

The caveat with DeepSeek is data residency. All inference runs on Chinese infrastructure, which creates compliance challenges for European and American enterprises subject to data sovereignty regulations. For more on this topic, see our AI sovereignty guide.

Meta: Free and Open, But Lagging on Benchmarks

Meta's Llama 4 family (Scout and Maverick, released April 2025) is open-weight, meaning the model weights are freely downloadable and can be self-hosted. Pricing varies by API provider: DeepInfra and Fireworks offer the cheapest rates ($0.08-$0.15 input for Scout), while Together AI charges 60-80% more.

Llama 4 Scout is the long-context specialist with a native 10M token context window, the largest of any model in the market. In practice, most API providers cap this at 128K-320K tokens, but for self-hosted deployments, the full 10M window is available. Scout runs on a single GPU with only 17 billion active parameters (out of 109B total), making it remarkably efficient to serve.

Llama 4 Maverick is the quality-focused variant with 400B total parameters (17B active). It scores 85.5% on MMLU and 69.8% on GPQA Diamond, placing it behind the closed-source leaders but ahead of most open-weight alternatives. Maverick does not yet have SWE-bench or AIME results published.

The strategic value of Llama 4 is not benchmark leadership. It is cost and control. Self-hosted Llama 4 costs only the price of GPU compute, with no per-token API fees. For organizations processing billions of tokens per month, self-hosting Llama 4 can reduce costs by 90%+ compared to API-based alternatives. The tradeoff is operational complexity: you need GPU infrastructure, model serving expertise, and ongoing maintenance.

Llama 4 Behemoth, Meta's largest model, is still in training and not yet available. When released, it is expected to compete directly with Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 on benchmarks.

xAI: The Wildcard

xAI's Grok 4.3, launched May 6, 2026, is the newest model in the comparison. At $1.25/$2.50 per million tokens with a 1M context window and vision support, it is priced aggressively below every other frontier model except DeepSeek. The catch: xAI has not published detailed benchmark results for Grok 4.3, making independent evaluation difficult.

What we know from the Arena: Grok 4.20 beta1 scores 1479 ELO (tied with GPT-5.4 high), suggesting competitive quality. The previous Grok 3 claimed to outperform o3-mini-high on AIME 2025 at launch, but xAI presented results only as charts, not exact numbers - Analytics Vidhya.

xAI is also deprecating several models (Grok 4, Grok 4.1 Fast, Grok 3) on May 15, 2026, consolidating around Grok 4.3 as the single primary offering. This simplification contrasts with OpenAI's portfolio approach. Tool use (web search, X search, code execution) adds $2.50-$5.00 per 1,000 calls on top of token costs.

Mistral: Europe's Contender

Mistral Large 3 at $0.50/$1.50 offers a 128K context window and vision support at a price point that competes with Google's Flash models. Mistral claims performance "at or above 90% of Claude Sonnet 3.7 on benchmarks across the board," though exact numbers were published only in images, not text. As the leading European AI lab, Mistral benefits from EU data sovereignty requirements that steer European enterprises toward European providers. Their pricing is the most aggressive of any Western lab, likely reflecting both efficient architecture and strategic positioning - Mistral AI Pricing.

The Codestral model deserves specific mention for coding workloads. At $0.30/$0.90 with a 256K context window, Codestral is purpose-built for code generation, completion, and explanation. It supports fill-in-the-middle (FIM) tasks that are essential for IDE integrations where the model must generate code that fits between existing blocks. For teams building developer tools on a budget, Codestral offers a focused coding capability at a fraction of the cost of general-purpose frontier models. The trade-off is capability breadth: Codestral is optimized for code and underperforms on general reasoning or multimodal tasks.

Mistral's open-weight releases also matter. Mistral Small 3 at $0.10/$0.30 is publicly available as open weights, meaning it can be self-hosted at near-zero marginal cost. For European organizations that need both budget pricing and data residency guarantees, running Mistral Small 3 on European cloud infrastructure is the cleanest compliance solution in the market.

Cohere and AI21: Enterprise Specialists

Two providers occupy a specific niche: enterprise deployments where retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and business document processing are the primary workloads.

Cohere's Command A at $2.50/$10.00 is a 111 billion parameter open-weights model with a 256K context window, purpose-built for enterprise search and document processing. Cohere's differentiation is not raw benchmark scores but the surrounding platform: Embed for generating embeddings, Rerank for improving retrieval precision, and a deployment stack designed for enterprise compliance. Command A's open-weight availability means large enterprises can self-host on private infrastructure without API dependency - Cohere Pricing.

AI21 Labs' Jamba Large 1.7 uses a hybrid Mamba-Transformer architecture that handles long documents unusually efficiently. The Mamba layers process sequences with linear scaling (rather than the quadratic scaling of standard attention), which means Jamba maintains performance across its 256K context window without the degradation seen in some attention-only models. At $2.00/$8.00, it positions below Cohere Command A while offering competitive long-document capability. For enterprise document review pipelines processing hundreds of thousands of pages monthly, Jamba's architectural efficiency can translate to meaningful cost savings.

Neither Cohere nor AI21 compete at the frontier on general benchmarks. They compete on workflow integration, enterprise tooling, and specific retrieval tasks where their architectures have genuine advantages. If your primary workload is enterprise search, knowledge management, or document processing at scale, both deserve evaluation alongside the general-purpose models in the master table.

Qwen: China's API-Accessible Contender

Alibaba's Qwen 3.6 Plus at $0.33/$1.95 rounds out the budget tier from a major Chinese lab. With a 128K context window and vision support, it competes directly with Mistral Large 3 and Gemini 2.5 Flash on price. The Qwen-Turbo variant at $0.03/$0.13 is the cheapest model from any major provider with vision support, making it a genuine option for very-high-volume image processing workloads where cost dominates all other considerations - Qwen API Platform.

Like DeepSeek, Qwen models run on Chinese infrastructure, creating the same data residency concerns for regulated industries. However, the Qwen model weights are openly published on Hugging Face, which means enterprises with compliance requirements can self-host on their own infrastructure in any jurisdiction. This combination of open weights and low API pricing makes Qwen particularly compelling for Asia-Pacific deployments where latency to Alibaba's servers is lower and regulatory considerations differ from the US and EU context.

---

7. Open-Source vs Closed-Source: The Economic Divide

The division between open-weight and closed-source models creates fundamentally different economic structures for AI deployments. Understanding this divide is essential for making infrastructure decisions that compound correctly over time.

Open-weight models (Llama 4, DeepSeek, Mistral, Qwen) let you download and self-host the model. You pay for GPU compute, not per-token API fees. Closed-source models (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus, Gemini) are accessible only through APIs, where you pay per token consumed. The break-even point between these approaches depends on your monthly token volume, required quality level, and operational capability.

The structural economics favor self-hosting above approximately 500 million tokens per month. Below that threshold, API costs are low enough that the operational overhead of managing GPU infrastructure (provisioning, monitoring, scaling, updating) exceeds the savings. Above it, the fixed cost of GPU compute is amortized across enough tokens that per-token costs drop below API prices.

The specific numbers: a single NVIDIA A100 GPU ($2-3/hour on cloud providers) can serve Llama 4 Scout at roughly 50-80 tokens per second. At sustained utilization, that is approximately 4-6 million tokens per hour, or 100-150 million tokens per day. The cost works out to roughly $0.02-0.04 per million tokens, which is 3-7x cheaper than even DeepSeek's API pricing and 100x cheaper than GPT-5.5.

The tradeoff is real: self-hosted models require MLOps expertise, fail less gracefully than managed APIs, and lag behind the frontier on benchmarks. Llama 4 Maverick (85.5% MMLU) does not match Gemini 3.1 Pro (92.6% MMLU) on quality. But for workloads where 85% accuracy is sufficient and volume is high, the cost savings are transformative. We explored this dynamic in depth in our analysis of how LLM inference is reshaping software economics.

The third option is increasingly popular: open-weight models via third-party API providers (DeepInfra, Fireworks, Together AI, Groq). These providers host Llama 4 and DeepSeek models on their own infrastructure and charge per-token rates that are cheaper than the original provider's API but more expensive than self-hosting. Llama 4 Scout via DeepInfra costs roughly $0.08-$0.15/M input, which is cheaper than any closed-source API but 3-5x more expensive than self-hosting. This middle ground suits teams that need budget pricing without the operational burden of managing GPUs.

---

8. Context Windows and Long-Context Performance

Context window size has standardized rapidly. In 2024, a 128K context window was exceptional. In May 2026, it is the baseline. Most frontier models support 1M tokens, with outliers pushing to 2M (Gemini 3.1 Pro) and 10M (Llama 4 Scout, though practically limited by providers).

The standardization at 1M tokens does not mean all models perform equally with long contexts. There is a significant difference between a model that accepts 1M tokens and a model that usefully processes them. The benchmark to watch here is MRCR v2 (Multi-Round Coreference Resolution), which tests whether models can retrieve and reason about specific information buried deep in long contexts.

Claude Opus 4.6 scores 76% on MRCR v2 (8-needle, 1M tokens), meaning it correctly resolves references spread across a million-token conversation about three-quarters of the time - Anthropic. Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 84.9% on MRCR v2 (8-needle, 128K tokens), but this is a different context length, making direct comparison difficult. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores 91.5% on MRCR at 128K, suggesting stronger retrieval in shorter contexts.

Google's long-context surcharge reveals an important economic truth about long-context processing. Gemini 3.1 Pro doubles its prices (from $2.00/$12.00 to $4.00/$18.00) for prompts exceeding 200K tokens. This surcharge reflects the actual compute cost: processing a 1M token prompt requires significantly more memory and computation than processing a 10K token prompt, even at the same quality level. Other providers absorb this cost into their flat per-token pricing, but the economics are the same under the hood.

For applications that genuinely need long-context processing (legal document review, codebase analysis, book-length summarization), the relevant comparison is not just the context window size but the effective cost and quality at that context length. Gemini 3.1 Pro at $4.00/$18.00 (long context pricing) processes 1M tokens for roughly $22 total. Claude Opus 4.7 at $5.00/$25.00 processes the same context for roughly $30. GPT-5.5 at $5.00/$30.00 costs $35 for the same workload. The quality differences at these extreme context lengths are harder to benchmark, but MRCR scores suggest Gemini has an edge.

The practical advice: if your prompts consistently stay under 128K tokens, context window size is irrelevant, and you should choose based on quality and cost. If you regularly process 200K-1M token prompts, Google and Anthropic are the only providers with proven long-context performance. If you need 1M+ tokens, Llama 4 Scout's 10M native context (self-hosted) or Gemini 3.1 Pro's 2M window are your only real options.

---

9. The Multimodal Gap: Vision, Audio, and Beyond

Most frontier models now support vision (image input processing). The master table marks this with a "Y" in the vision column. But "supports vision" is a spectrum, not a binary. Some models process images as a basic capability. Others can reason about charts, extract text from screenshots, analyze medical imaging, or interpret complex diagrams with high accuracy.

The standout result here is Claude Opus 4.7's 98.5% on XBOW visual-acuity, a benchmark that tests fine-grained visual perception. For context, Opus 4.6 scored only 54.5% on the same benchmark. This is the largest single-generation improvement on any benchmark in the table, and it signals that Anthropic invested heavily in visual processing for the 4.7 release.

GPT-5.5 supports vision across its full context window and can process video frames as sequences of images. Gemini 3.1 Pro natively processes images, audio, and video. Llama 4 Scout and Maverick both support image input. The notable exceptions are DeepSeek (V4 Flash and V4 Pro: no vision support) and Mistral (Large 3 supports vision, but smaller models do not).

For production applications that process images (document OCR, UI analysis, medical imaging, retail product recognition), the choice narrows to models with proven vision quality. Claude Opus 4.7 leads on fine-grained visual tasks. Gemini 3.1 Pro offers the broadest multimodal coverage (images, audio, video) at the best price. GPT-5.5 provides strong vision in a well-documented API. DeepSeek and most open-source models are not viable for vision-heavy workloads.

Audio processing is a separate dimension that most benchmarks do not cover. Gemini is the only provider that natively accepts audio input in its API (audio tokens are priced at 2-7x the text rate). Other providers require separate speech-to-text preprocessing (Whisper, Deepgram) before feeding text to the LLM, adding latency and cost.

---

10. How to Choose: A Decision Framework

The master table contains 28 models across 10 providers. No one needs all of them. The right model depends on three variables: your primary workload, your monthly token volume, and your tolerance for operational complexity.

By Workload Type

Coding and software engineering. Use Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Pro. Both score 80%+ on SWE-bench Verified. Claude has a slight edge in coding-specific benchmarks (CursorBench, Terminal-Bench), while Gemini is cheaper and has a larger context window. If cost matters, Claude Sonnet 4.6 at $3/$15 delivers 95% of Opus quality for 60% of the cost. For AI agent platforms like O-mega that run autonomous coding tasks, model selection directly impacts the success rate of generated code across thousands of executions.

Scientific research and reasoning. Use Gemini 3.1 Pro. Its 94.3% GPQA Diamond score is 6+ points ahead of the field. At $2/$12, it is also cheaper than every competing frontier model. The 2M context window handles full research papers and datasets. For medical applications specifically, see our applied AI in medicine guide.

Mathematical and logical reasoning. Use o3 or o4-mini from OpenAI. The reasoning models' ability to spend variable compute on hard problems makes them uniquely suited for mathematical workloads. Be prepared for higher effective costs due to reasoning token overhead.

High-volume text processing (summarization, classification, extraction, moderation). Use DeepSeek V4 Flash ($0.14/$0.28) or Llama 4 Scout ($0.10/$0.40 via API, cheaper self-hosted). At these price points, processing a million documents costs dollars, not thousands of dollars.

Conversational AI and chatbots. Any Tier 1 or top Tier 2 model works. The Arena ELO clustering at the top means users cannot distinguish between frontier models in blind tests. Choose based on price: Gemini 3 Flash ($0.50/$3.00) or Grok 4.3 ($1.25/$2.50) offer the best value for conversational workloads.

Enterprise with compliance requirements. Consider data residency. DeepSeek runs on Chinese infrastructure. Mistral runs on European infrastructure. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google primarily run on US infrastructure with European availability zones. If your data cannot leave a specific jurisdiction, this constraint narrows the field immediately. We covered sovereign AI considerations in our complete guide.

By Monthly Volume

Under 10M tokens/month ($1-300/month at most price points). Use whatever model fits your workload best. Cost differences are negligible at this volume. Optimize for quality and developer experience.

10M-100M tokens/month ($10-3,000/month). Cost optimization matters. Use Tier 2 models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4, Sonnet 4.6) for quality-sensitive tasks and Tier 3 models (DeepSeek V4 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash) for bulk processing. Enable prompt caching and batch processing to reduce costs by 50-70%.

100M-1B tokens/month ($100-30,000/month). Routing becomes essential. Use a model router that sends each request to the cheapest model capable of handling it. Simple classification tasks go to DeepSeek V4 Flash. Complex reasoning goes to Gemini 3.1 Pro. Coding tasks go to Claude Sonnet 4.6. This routing approach typically reduces costs by 60-80% compared to using a single model for everything.

Over 1B tokens/month ($1,000-300,000/month). Self-hosting open-weight models becomes the dominant strategy. Run Llama 4 Maverick or DeepSeek on your own GPU infrastructure for bulk tasks, and route only the hardest queries to closed-source APIs. The combined approach reduces costs by 90%+ while maintaining quality for the tasks that need it.

The Decision Tree

The simplest decision framework:

1. Does your workload require frontier quality (legal, medical, financial, complex coding)? If yes, choose Gemini 3.1 Pro (best benchmarks, best price) or Claude Opus 4.7 (best Arena ELO, best coding).
2. Does your workload process high volumes where cost dominates? If yes, choose DeepSeek V4 Flash (cheapest API) or Llama 4 Scout (cheapest self-hosted).
3. Does your workload require reasoning/math? If yes, choose o3 or o4-mini.
4. Does your workload require vision? If yes, eliminate DeepSeek from consideration.
5. Are you in a regulated industry with data residency requirements? If yes, choose providers whose infrastructure matches your jurisdiction.

For most teams, the answer is not a single model but a routing strategy that uses 2-3 models at different price-quality points. The AI agent platforms that are winning in production, including O-mega, all implement some form of intelligent model routing to balance cost and quality across different task types.

---

11. What Changed Since January 2026

The AI model landscape moves fast enough that a guide from five months ago is already partially obsolete. Here are the most significant changes since the start of 2026, and why they matter for your deployment decisions.

New Model Releases (January-May 2026)

The pace of releases has been unprecedented. In just five months, every major lab has shipped at least one significant model update.

Anthropic released Claude Opus 4.6 (early 2026) and Claude Opus 4.7 (April 16, 2026) in rapid succession. Opus 4.6 introduced Terminal-Bench 2.0 leadership and the highest SWE-bench Verified score at the time (81.42%). Opus 4.7 followed just weeks later with dramatic vision improvements (XBOW visual-acuity jumping from 54.5% to 98.5%), CursorBench improvements (58% to 70%), and a new tokenizer that generates more tokens per response. The rapid iteration pace suggests Anthropic is on a monthly or near-monthly release cadence for 2026.

OpenAI launched GPT-5.5 (April 2026) as its new flagship, extending the GPT-5 family with improved reasoning and a 1M context window. The most notable aspect of GPT-5.5 is the introduction of a Pro tier at $30/$180 per million tokens, the most expensive per-token pricing from any major provider. This signals OpenAI's bet that a segment of the market will pay super-premium prices for the highest-quality inference.

Google shipped Gemini 3.1 Pro (February 2026) with benchmark scores that reshaped the competitive landscape: 94.3% GPQA Diamond, 80.6% SWE-bench, and 44.4% HLE. The 2M context window and $2/$12 pricing cemented Google's position as the price-performance leader. Google also released Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and announced the deprecation of Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite (June 1, 2026).

DeepSeek released V4 Pro and V4 Flash with 1M context windows and aggressive promotional pricing (75% discount on V4 Pro until May 31). The V4 generation extends DeepSeek's lead as the cost leader, with V4 Flash at $0.14/$0.28 setting a new floor for API pricing.

xAI launched Grok 4.3 (May 6, 2026) and simultaneously deprecated Grok 4, Grok 4.1 Fast, and Grok 3 (May 15, 2026). The consolidation to a single model simplifies xAI's offering but reduces flexibility for developers who relied on specific Grok variants.

The Scaling Laws Debate Continues

The question of whether AI model capabilities are hitting diminishing returns has been debated since late 2024. As we analyzed in our scaling laws investigation, the evidence through May 2026 is mixed.

On one hand, benchmark scores continue to improve: GPQA Diamond went from 84% (Gemini 2.5 Pro, March 2025) to 94.3% (Gemini 3.1 Pro, February 2026). SWE-bench Verified went from 63.8% (Gemini 2.5 Pro) to 81.4% (Claude Opus 4.6). Humanity's Last Exam went from 18.8% (Gemini 2.5 Pro) to 44.4% (Gemini 3.1 Pro). These are substantial improvements over 12 months.

On the other hand, the Chatbot Arena shows diminishing returns in human-perceived quality. The top 10 models are clustered within 25 ELO points, and users in blind tests increasingly cannot distinguish between them. This suggests that while technical capabilities continue to improve on measurable benchmarks, the perceived quality gap from the user's perspective is narrowing.

The practical implication: if your application is evaluated by benchmarks (coding accuracy, factual correctness, math scores), upgrading to the latest model delivers real improvements. If your application is evaluated by user satisfaction (chatbots, assistants, content generation), the incremental value of each new model release is smaller. For an in-depth look at how algorithmic improvements are driving progress beyond pure scale, see our state of algorithms report.

Price Trends

The overall direction is down, but not uniformly. Frontier model pricing has been stable: GPT-5.5 at $5/$30, Claude Opus at $5/$25, and Gemini 3.1 Pro at $2/$12 represent roughly the same price range that frontier models have occupied since 2025. The compression is happening at the mid-tier and budget levels.

DeepSeek's V4 Flash at $0.14/$0.28 is roughly 50% cheaper than V3 at its launch. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite at $0.10/$0.40 is the cheapest model from any major Western provider. Llama 4 Scout via API providers is available for as low as $0.08/$0.30. The budget floor has dropped from roughly $0.50/M output (late 2024) to roughly $0.28/M output (May 2026), a 44% decline in 18 months.

This asymmetric price compression means the cost-performance gap between tiers is widening. Frontier models are not getting cheaper, but mid-tier models are getting dramatically cheaper while maintaining quality. The result: the economic case for using frontier models for every task is weaker than ever. Intelligent routing between tiers saves more money in May 2026 than at any point in AI history.

---

12. Where This Is Heading

Predicting specific model releases is a fool's errand in this market. But the structural trends shaping the next 6-12 months are clear, and they have practical implications for infrastructure decisions you make today.

The Commoditization Thesis

The first-principles question is: what happens to pricing when intelligence becomes a commodity input?

The pattern from every previous technology wave is consistent. When a critical input (compute, storage, bandwidth, intelligence) transitions from scarce to abundant, three things happen simultaneously. The input price falls toward marginal cost of production. The businesses selling the raw input face margin compression. And the businesses that combine the cheap input with other scarce resources (domain expertise, customer relationships, regulatory knowledge, distribution) capture disproportionate value.

We are in the early stages of this transition for AI inference. The raw "intelligence" layer (the model API) is commoditizing. Frontier quality is available from at least five providers at roughly comparable levels. Budget quality is available for fractions of a cent per million tokens. The pricing trend line points toward continued compression, especially as open-weight models close the quality gap with closed-source offerings.

The businesses that will thrive are not the ones using the most expensive model. They are the ones that combine adequate intelligence with proprietary data, workflow integration, and domain-specific optimization. This is the thesis behind autonomous AI agent platforms, including O-mega, where the value is not in the model itself but in the orchestration, tool integration, memory, and domain adaptation built on top of the model layer. For a deeper exploration of this structural shift, see our analysis of the agent economy.

What to Watch

Llama 4 Behemoth from Meta is still in training and expected to be the largest open-weight model ever released. If it matches Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5 on benchmarks, it will compress frontier pricing further by making top-tier quality available for self-hosting.

Gemini's pricing strategy will shape the market. If Google continues to subsidize Gemini to drive Cloud Platform adoption, competitors will face sustained margin pressure. If Google raises prices to improve profitability, the competitive dynamics shift.

Reasoning model costs are the biggest unknown. o3 and Claude's thinking mode deliver measurably better results on hard problems, but at unpredictable and often high effective costs. The provider that makes reasoning affordable without sacrificing quality will capture significant market share.

Context window utilization is still nascent. Most applications do not yet fully exploit 1M+ token contexts. As more applications are designed for long-context workflows (multi-document analysis, full-codebase reasoning, long conversation histories), the providers with proven long-context performance (Google, Anthropic) will have an advantage.

As we covered in our guide to building AI agents, the choice of underlying model is just one component of a larger system design. The orchestration, memory, tool-calling, and feedback loop architecture often matter more than which specific model sits at the center.

---

Final Verdict: May 2026 Model Recommendations

The table below summarizes the optimal model choice for each major use case. These recommendations are based on the benchmark data, pricing analysis, and provider profiles covered throughout this guide.

The single most important takeaway from this guide: there is no single best model. The "best" model depends entirely on your workload, volume, and requirements. The teams that win on AI infrastructure in 2026 are the ones that match the right model to the right task, using the cheapest adequate option for each query rather than defaulting to the most expensive frontier model for everything.

The data in this guide will be outdated within weeks. New models ship monthly. Prices change quarterly. Benchmarks evolve. But the structural framework for evaluating models (cost-performance frontiers, tier-based routing, benchmark-to-workload mapping) remains stable even as the specific numbers shift. Use this framework, update the numbers, and keep optimizing.

---

---

This guide reflects the AI model landscape as of May 15, 2026. Model releases, pricing changes, and benchmark updates happen monthly. Verify current details on each provider's pricing page before making infrastructure decisions. All pricing is in USD per million tokens unless otherwise noted.