This is completely the wrong read!

Sol 6.1 scores one point less than Gemini 4 on intelligence AND costs less than half ($0.72 vs $1.99) per task.

Additionally, if you are using OpenAI you have the option to pay a bit more and get Astra which - despite the benchmarks - does outperform Sol on some things.

Also, people are - rightly - very wary of Google's benchmaxxing tendencies. I think lots of people remember Gemini 3.0 (I think?) which benchmarked amazingly, but as soon as you used it would go off-track and needed constant babysitting if you wanted to use it for agentic work.

Here are sites with ongoing measurements checking if a model has been nerfed - check opus 5.5-

https://www.bridgebench.ai/nerf-bench

https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/ https://marginlab.ai/trackers/codex/

https://github.com/ninjahawk/livenerf

https://isitnerfed.org/

They own their hardware. That vertical integration alone probably saves oodles because they can reconfigure to their needs as opposed to individually negotiating data centre plans. I can't imagine the complexity both OpenAI and Anthropic have to maintain for their deployments.

GPT-6.1-sol costs less than half of Gemini and way less than Anthropic on the cost per task chart of the listed parent page.

> Opus 5.5 right now because it's nearly unlimited use

Anthropic has some of the lowest usage per $ in general, not sure what you're taking about.

It's not as smart as Claude Opus 5.5 High according to the AA benchmark. Looks like a big fat nothingburger so far, though it's possible that future fine-tuned checkpoints of the same pretrained model will do a lot better.

[dead]

That is considered a consumer-level surface so the prompt and features layered on top are more important than the model underneath. If you want the latest models you should use Antigravity, it's the "pro" interface.

On my paid personal Workspace account I’m even more behind. I see 3.1 Pro, 3.6 Flash (New). Can’t not laugh at that ‘New’.

The only models beating it are on "max", while this is "high". There's no guarantee that those effort / reasoning levels compare, but there's almost certainly an "xhigh" or "max" version later which will score higher there.

I found that Google does not benchmaxx as much as the other providers. Of you look at real-case evaluation like lm-arena, even the 3.8 flash is often near the top despite its benchmark index being worse.

> does not meaningfully improve on intelligence or price compared to its peers

$10 per million output tokens isn't improving on frontier price?

flash on ai studio is my fav model to chat with, by miles

Based on some... rumors I've heard, this is their "Pro" offering. There is supposed to be an Ultra coming as well.

It's half cost of gpt for same intelligence. Nearly 4x cheaper than claude.

[dead]

Important to remember AI is a direct assault on their actually profitable business: search and ads.

OpenAI and Anthropic are existential threats to Google and it will operate accordingly.

A slightly different question would be can they afford to "sit out" of any price war?

Google is losing in the market share - their share is 0. Anthropic revenue was $60B in the last 12 months. Google is not growing the pie, it needs to buy its way to the market share and to a seat in the table.

> Argon will launch at an introductory price of $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens, with cached input tokens priced at 95% off input token price.

https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...

1/5th the price of Astra and Fable

From the charts, it's similar in intelligence and cost per task to both Opus 5.5 (high) and 6-Astra (max). It would be better if it were more intelligent and less expensive, but I don't see a reason to expect it to have better performance than models released around the same time.

To play the Devil's advocate, Claude loves chugging tokens, while Gemini appears to be quite a bit more conservative and efficient. I believe AA's price per task breakdown reflects this.

What are you talking about? It’s comparable to Opus 5.5 on “high” (54 vs 53; $1.82 vs $1.99), crushes every model except the most modern OAI/Ant ones, has way lower hallucination than every existing model and probably broader support for multimodal like existing Gemini models. This is so ludicrously off base.