OpenAI o3
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by OpenAI · Reinforcement Learning Reasoning Transformer · Modalities: Text, Vision · Released 2025-04-16
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for OpenAI o3?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 84.8/100Architectural & Production Profile
OpenAI's deep reasoning specialist achieving state-of-the-art performance on GPQA Diamond, competitive programming, and visual chain-of-thought.
Algorithmic synthesis, mathematical verification, PhD-level scientific research, and multi-step tool planning.
- Architecture
- Reinforcement Learning Reasoning Transformer
- Modalities
- Text, Vision
- Max Output Tokens
- 100,000 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $3.500 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting OpenAI o3
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 | $2.00 | $8.00 | 1150ms | 82 tok/s |
| Anysphere Cursor Router → | Partner Endpoint | $2.00 | $8.00 | 1170ms | 82 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
$2.00/1M in · $8.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.500/1M read · $2.00/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving OpenAI o3 (36)
OpenAI o3 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon and OpenAI o3 share identical input pricing at $2.00 per 1M tokens ($10.00 vs. $8.00 output). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 4 Argon delivers lower response latency at 850ms TTFT (300ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 115 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 93.8% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
OpenAI o3 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (770ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 84 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 84.2% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Claude Opus 5.5
OpenAI o3 is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5.5 delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (470ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 95 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 93.2% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 87.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (8.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (1045ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 210 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.5% for Gemini 3.8 Flash and 87.7% vs. 79.2% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs GPT-5
OpenAI o3 is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5 delivers lower response latency at 340ms TTFT (810ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 105 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 85.4% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs GPT-6 Astra
OpenAI o3 is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-6 Astra delivers lower response latency at 740ms TTFT (410ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 74 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 96.0% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 34.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (630ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 78 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 90.1% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs DeepSeek R1
DeepSeek R1 is 72.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (3.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o3 delivers lower response latency at 1150ms TTFT (300ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 82 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 87.7% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) outperforms OpenAI o3 in cost, speed, and capability. DeepSeek is 89.0% cheaper on input ($0.22 vs. $2.00) and $0.65 vs. $8.00 on output per 1M tokens. It achieves 310ms latency (840ms faster), 165 vs. 82 tok/s throughput, and leads SWE-bench Verified (77.4% vs. 71.7%) and GPQA Diamond (91.3% vs. 87.7%).
OpenAI o3 vs Claude 4 Opus
OpenAI o3 is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4 Opus delivers lower response latency at 920ms TTFT (230ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 46 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 87.1% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
OpenAI o3 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 540ms TTFT (610ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 72 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 70.3% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and 87.7% vs. 78.5% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.1 Pro delivers lower response latency at 420ms TTFT (730ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 98 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 82.4% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Grok 4
OpenAI o3 is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 4 delivers lower response latency at 480ms TTFT (670ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 95 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 86.2% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (1015ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 175 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick and 87.7% vs. 73.8% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers superior performance at a massive cost advantage over OpenAI o3. It slashes input pricing by 92.0% ($0.16 vs. $2.00/1M) and output to $0.47 vs. $8.00. Furthermore, Qwen leads in latency (280ms TTFT, 870ms faster), throughput (185 vs. 82 tok/s), SWE-bench Verified (81.0% vs. 71.7%), and GPQA Diamond (91.7% vs. 87.7%).
OpenAI o3 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 96.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (26.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (1072ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 265 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 87.7% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs OpenAI o4-mini
OpenAI o4-mini is 45.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (470ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 125 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 87.7% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 93.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (14.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V3 delivers lower response latency at 410ms TTFT (740ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 78 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 87.7% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (1035ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 155 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 87.7% vs. 71.2% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs OpenAI o3-mini
OpenAI o3-mini is 45.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o3-mini delivers lower response latency at 950ms TTFT (200ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 98 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 87.7% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (2.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (960ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 130 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 87.7% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
OpenAI o3 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (840ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 80 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 87.7% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.0 Flash delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (870ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 185 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash and 87.7% vs. 63.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (1040ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 180 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 87.7% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (450ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 80 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 87.7% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (1060ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 175 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 87.7% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 is 82.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.00 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (5.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (990ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 120 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 56.0% for GLM-5.3 and 87.7% vs. 67.0% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (930ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 140 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 87.7% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs GPT-4o
OpenAI o3 is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (870ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 100 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 87.7% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol and OpenAI o3 share identical input pricing at $2.00 per 1M tokens ($10.00 vs. $8.00 output). In terms of operational performance, GPT-6.1 Sol delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (630ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 135 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 92.4% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Grok 3 Mini
Grok 3 Mini is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.20 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (1000ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 160 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 54.0% for Grok 3 Mini and 87.7% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Grok 3
OpenAI o3 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 delivers lower response latency at 620ms TTFT (530ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 88 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 65.8% for Grok 3 and 87.7% vs. 84.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (1005ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 165 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 87.7% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Mistral Large 2 (2411) and OpenAI o3 share identical input pricing at $2.00 per 1M tokens ($6.00 vs. $8.00 output). In terms of operational performance, Mistral Large 2 (2411) delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (770ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 75 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 87.7% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o3 vs o1
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.
OpenAI o3 vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Qwen 3.8 27B is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (1030ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 140 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.4% for Qwen 3.8 27B and 87.7% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does OpenAI o3 cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
OpenAI o3 costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $8.00 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.500 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 75%.
What are OpenAI o3's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
OpenAI o3 achieves 71.7% on SWE-bench Verified, 95.2% on HumanEval coding, 87.7% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 89.8% on MMLU-Pro, and 98.6% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 60.6/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of OpenAI o3?
OpenAI o3 supports a 204,800 token context window (100,000 max output tokens) and operates at 1150ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 82 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for OpenAI o3?
Algorithmic synthesis, mathematical verification, PhD-level scientific research, and multi-step tool planning.