benchr
Worth reading
DeepSeek raised prices and made the clock part of the bill
DeepSeek raised V4 API prices on August 16, 2026 and split every rate into peak and off-peak halves. V4-Flash output went from $0.28 to $1.32 during peak hours.
Choose an AI model with evidence
Verified records, your tests, and real cost — one clear decision.
One clear model decision
Compare → test → choose.
Three steps. No universal winner.
01
CompareRead the recordPrice · context · sources
02
TestUse your own casesBlind scores · real outputs
03
ChooseSave the shortlistFit · cost · evidence
33verified models
25logged changes
41retirement records
4 labelsevidence categories
New and changed
Recent model updates
LoadingReading the verified change record…
Latest
View every release →-
01
DeepSeek raised prices and made the clock part of the bill
DeepSeek raised V4 API prices on August 16, 2026 and split every rate into peak and off-peak halves. V4-Flash output went from $0.28 to $1.32 during peak hours.
-
02
Gemini 3.7 Flash costs the same as 3.6 Flash — and both double in January
Gemini 3.7 Flash went GA on August 13, 2026 at $0.75/$3.75 per 1M tokens, the same rate 3.6 Flash was cut to. Both return to $1.50/$7.50 on January 1, 2027.
-
03
GLM-5.3: 1M coding, hosted now with weights pending
Z.AI's API release adds post-training gains, always-on reasoning, and three compatible protocols at $1.40/$4.40.
-
04
Gemini 3.7 Flash: introductory pricing and migration
Google's stable multimodal model starts at $0.75/$3.75 through 2026, with a 1M-token window and a dated price change.
-
05
Grok 4.6: 500K agent model with no numeric output ceiling
Grok 4.6 targets long coding agents, starts at $2/$6, doubles at 200K prompt tokens, and has no numeric text-output cap.
-
06
Grok 4.5, reviewed: the coding specialist that got smaller, not bigger
Grok 4.5 review: xAI's coding specialist, built with Cursor, priced at $2/$6, with a smaller 500K context window than Grok 4.3 despite what some blogs claim.
-
07
GLM-5.2, reviewed: an open-weight model with a real coding claim
GLM-5.2 review: Zhipu's MIT-licensed, open-weight 753B model at $1.40/$4.40 per million tokens, with coding benchmarks Z.AI says beat GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.7.
-
08
OpenAI Presence is an enterprise agent service, not another API
OpenAI Presence bundles voice and chat agents with policies, evaluations, approved actions, and escalation. What buyers know—and what remains undisclosed.
Reviews
-
07
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic's current Opus at the same $5/$25 rate — what changes over 4.8, and who should move.
-
08
GPT-5
A candidate for visual and structured-output work based on OpenAI's published positioning; validate it on your own prompts.
-
09
Gemini 3 Pro
A retired multimodal model that Google deprecated in March 2026 in favor of Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Comparisons
-
10
Coding assistants
Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Windsurf, and Cody on the same Markdown-exporter task.
-
11
Voice models
ElevenLabs, OpenAI Whisper, and Cartesia Sonic on latency, accuracy, and naturalness.
-
12
Context windows
Advertised context capacity versus reproducible retrieval checks you can run on your own documents.
Analysis
-
13
Price per use case
The cheapest model for chat, coding, RAG, agents, classification, and summarization.
-
14
The open-weight tier
Where Llama 4, Mistral Large 3, DeepSeek-V4, and Qwen 3.6 stand against the closed labs.
-
15
Why benchmarks stopped telling you
MMLU is saturated above 90%. The benchmarks worth tracking now.
Guides
-
16
Frontier models
Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: sourced specifications, editorial tradeoffs, and a local evaluation plan.
-
17
Open-weight models
Llama 4, Mistral, DeepSeek, Qwen, the small-model tier, and what it takes to self-host.
-
18
AI costs
What AI costs by model and workload, and where teams overspend.
Compare models directly
An interactive comparison covering pricing, benchmarks, context windows, and capability ratings for all 33 models in the shared index, across frontier, mid, and open-weight tiers.
All 33 models ranked by benchr Rating →
All 113 articles in the archive →
Provider guides: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and open weights →
benchr is an evidence-led reference, not a generic listicle. Figures are identified as official provider data, third-party benchmark results, or benchr editorial estimates so readers can judge the evidence behind each claim.
- Traceable evidence. Official prices and specifications link to provider documentation; benchmark results link to their maintainers; estimates and analysis are labeled as such. Verification dates and source fields are published in our open data file.
- A record no one else keeps. An append-only price history and a permanent deprecation register; retired models are never deleted — that memory is the point.
- Editorially independent and commercially transparent. Some marked links to AI/ML API, Lovable, and RunPod can earn benchr a commission without changing your price. Partners do not buy rankings or approve coverage. Google AdSense may be added only after approval. Read the affiliate disclosure, editorial standards, and corrections policy.