// head_to_head

GPT-5.5 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

GPT-6 Astra is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.

GPT-5.5 Pro does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

openai

GPT-5.5 Pro

Blended / 1M
$67.50
Context
1.1M
Released
Apr 24, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningtool callingfile inputimage input

openai

GPT-6 Astra

Blended / 1M
$20.00
Context
1.1M
Released
Sep 4, 2026
Overall score
82.2
reasoningtool callingfile inputimage inputprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricGPT-5.5 ProGPT-6 Astra
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

82.2
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.3942
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$67.50$20.00win
Input price / 1M$30.00$10.00win
Output price / 1M$180.00$50.00win
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$1.00
Context window1.1M1.1M
Max output tokens128K128K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — GPT-5.5 Pro on top, GPT-6 Astra below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
57.3
Coding
80.4
Reasoning
92.7
Mathematics
96.8
Data analysis
83.0
Language
89.4
Instruction following
75.6

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadGPT-5.5 ProGPT-6 Astra
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$21,600/mo$5,752/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$34,800/mo$7,400/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$38,400/mo$6,960/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$43,500/mo$13,300/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$93,000/mo$25,500/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You are cost-constrained

GPT-6 Astra

Cheaper on blended list price at $20.00 per million tokens.

GPT-5.5 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra FAQ

Which is better, GPT-5.5 Pro or GPT-6 Astra?

GPT-6 Astra is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. GPT-5.5 Pro does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is GPT-5.5 Pro cheaper than GPT-6 Astra?

GPT-6 Astra is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, GPT-5.5 Pro lists at $67.50 per million tokens and GPT-6 Astra at $20.00 — GPT-6 Astra is 3.4× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — GPT-5.5 Pro charges $30.00 in and $180.00 out, GPT-6 Astra charges $10.00 and $50.00 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Does GPT-5.5 Pro or GPT-6 Astra have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 1.1M for GPT-5.5 Pro and 1.1M for GPT-6 Astra.

Do GPT-5.5 Pro and GPT-6 Astra support prompt caching?

GPT-6 Astra publishes a cached-input rate of $1.00 per million tokens against a full input rate of $10.00. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for GPT-5.5 Pro, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.