o1
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by OpenAI · Reasoning RL Transformer · Modalities: Text, Vision · Released 2024-12-05
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for o1?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 72.8/100Architectural & Production Profile
First-generation heavyweight reasoning model engineered for academic research, complex mathematics, and deep multimodal analysis.
Legacy reasoning benchmarks, scientific literature review, and complex mathematical proofs.
- Architecture
- Reasoning RL Transformer
- Modalities
- Text, Vision
- Max Output Tokens
- 100,000 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $26.250 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting o1
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI Platform API → | Primary Host | $15.00 | $60.00 | 2600ms | 48 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$15.00/1M in · $60.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $7.500/1M read · $15.00/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving o1 (36)
o1 vs DeepSeek R1
DeepSeek R1 cuts input token costs by 96.3% compared to o1 ($0.55 vs. $15.00 per 1M input tokens; $2.19 vs. $60.00/1M output). For autonomous software engineering, DeepSeek R1 leads on SWE-bench Verified (49.2% vs. 48.9%), while o1 edges ahead on GPQA Diamond scientific reasoning (78.0%). In real-time API production, DeepSeek R1 achieves a faster 1450ms TTFT latency (58.0 tokens/sec).
o1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 4 Argon delivers lower response latency at 850ms TTFT (1750ms faster than o1) with 115 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 93.8% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Claude 4.5 Sonnet is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (2220ms faster than o1) with 84 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 84.2% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 is 73.3% cheaper for input tokens ($4.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $20.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (3.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5.5 delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (1920ms faster than o1) with 95 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 93.2% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 98.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (60.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (2495ms faster than o1) with 210 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 79.2% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs GPT-5
GPT-5 is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (6.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5 delivers lower response latency at 340ms TTFT (2260ms faster than o1) with 105 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 85.4% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs GPT-6 Astra
GPT-6 Astra is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($10.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $50.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-6 Astra delivers lower response latency at 740ms TTFT (1860ms faster than o1) with 74 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 96.0% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 91.2% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (11.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (2080ms faster than o1) with 78 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 90.1% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 98.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (68.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (2290ms faster than o1) with 165 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 91.3% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs GPT-4o
GPT-4o cuts input token costs by 83.3% compared to o1 ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M input tokens; $10.00 vs. $60.00/1M output). For autonomous software engineering, o1 leads on SWE-bench Verified (48.9% vs. 48.0%), while o1 edges ahead on GPQA Diamond scientific reasoning (78.0%). In real-time API production, GPT-4o achieves a faster 280ms TTFT latency (100.0 tokens/sec).
o1 vs OpenAI o3
OpenAI o3 is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o3 delivers lower response latency at 1150ms TTFT (1450ms faster than o1) with 82 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 87.7% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Claude 4 Opus
Claude 4 Opus and o1 share identical input pricing at $15.00 per 1M tokens ($75.00 vs. $60.00 output). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4 Opus delivers lower response latency at 920ms TTFT (1680ms faster than o1) with 46 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 87.1% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 540ms TTFT (2060ms faster than o1) with 72 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 78.5% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro is 91.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (12.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.1 Pro delivers lower response latency at 420ms TTFT (2180ms faster than o1) with 98 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 82.4% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Grok 4
Grok 4 is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $12.50 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (6.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 4 delivers lower response latency at 480ms TTFT (2120ms faster than o1) with 95 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 86.2% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick is 98.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (75.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (2465ms faster than o1) with 175 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 73.8% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 98.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (93.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (2320ms faster than o1) with 185 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 91.7% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 99.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (200.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (2522ms faster than o1) with 265 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 68.4% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs OpenAI o4-mini
OpenAI o4-mini is 92.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (13.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (1920ms faster than o1) with 125 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 81.4% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 99.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (107.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V3 delivers lower response latency at 410ms TTFT (2190ms faster than o1) with 78 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. o1 leads coding evaluations at 48.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 78.0% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (2485ms faster than o1) with 155 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemma 4 31B IT leads coding evaluations at 59.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 71.2% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs OpenAI o3-mini
OpenAI o3-mini is 92.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (13.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o3-mini delivers lower response latency at 950ms TTFT (1650ms faster than o1) with 98 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3-mini leads coding evaluations at 49.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 79.7% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 94.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (18.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (2410ms faster than o1) with 130 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. o1 leads coding evaluations at 48.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 78.0% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (2290ms faster than o1) with 80 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 49.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 59.4% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 99.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (150.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.0 Flash delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (2320ms faster than o1) with 185 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.0 Flash leads coding evaluations at 51.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 63.6% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 98.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (50.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (2490ms faster than o1) with 180 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 70.5% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 91.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (12.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (1900ms faster than o1) with 80 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 74.0% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (2510ms faster than o1) with 175 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 63.5% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 is 97.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (42.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (2440ms faster than o1) with 120 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3 leads coding evaluations at 56.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 67.0% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 99.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (100.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (2380ms faster than o1) with 140 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. o1 leads coding evaluations at 48.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 78.0% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-6.1 Sol delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (2080ms faster than o1) with 135 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 92.4% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Grok 3 Mini
Grok 3 Mini is 98.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.20 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (50.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (2450ms faster than o1) with 160 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 Mini leads coding evaluations at 54.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 68.0% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Grok 3
Grok 3 is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 delivers lower response latency at 620ms TTFT (1980ms faster than o1) with 88 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 leads coding evaluations at 65.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 84.6% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (2455ms faster than o1) with 165 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. o1 leads coding evaluations at 48.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 78.0% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Mistral Large 2 (2411) is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Mistral Large 2 (2411) delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (2220ms faster than o1) with 75 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. o1 leads coding evaluations at 48.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 78.0% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
o1 vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Qwen 3.8 27B is 98.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (75.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (2480ms faster than o1) with 140 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 27B leads coding evaluations at 58.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 68.0% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does o1 cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
o1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $60.00 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $7.500 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 50%.
What are o1's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
o1 achieves 48.9% on SWE-bench Verified, 92.4% on HumanEval coding, 78% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 83.3% on MMLU-Pro, and 96.4% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 37.2/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of o1?
o1 supports a 204,800 token context window (100,000 max output tokens) and operates at 2600ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 48 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for o1?
Legacy reasoning benchmarks, scientific literature review, and complex mathematical proofs.