// head_to_head

GPT-6 Astra vs Laguna S 2.1

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

Laguna S 2.1 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.

Laguna S 2.1 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-6 Astra

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

poolside

Laguna S 2.1

Blended / 1M
$0.113
Context
1.0M
Released
Jul 21, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningtool callingprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricGPT-6 AstraLaguna S 2.1
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.

$20.00$0.113win
Input price / 1M$10.00$0.090win
Output price / 1M$50.00$0.180win
Cached input / 1M

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

$1.00$0.0090win
Context window1.1M1.0M
Max output tokens128K131K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — GPT-6 Astra on top, Laguna S 2.1 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-6 AstraLaguna S 2.1
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$5,752/mo$30.17/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$7,400/mo$50.40/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$6,960/mo$41.04/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$13,300/mo$99.45/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$25,500/mo$202.50/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You are cost-constrained

Laguna S 2.1

Cheaper on blended list price at $0.113 per million tokens.

GPT-6 Astra vs Laguna S 2.1 FAQ

Which is better, GPT-6 Astra or Laguna S 2.1?

Laguna S 2.1 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Laguna S 2.1 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-6 Astra cheaper than Laguna S 2.1?

Laguna S 2.1 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, GPT-6 Astra lists at $20.00 per million tokens and Laguna S 2.1 at $0.113 — Laguna S 2.1 is 178× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — GPT-6 Astra charges $10.00 in and $50.00 out, Laguna S 2.1 charges $0.090 and $0.180 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Does GPT-6 Astra or Laguna S 2.1 have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 1.1M for GPT-6 Astra and 1.0M for Laguna S 2.1.

Do GPT-6 Astra and Laguna S 2.1 support prompt caching?

Both publish a cached-input rate: $1.00 per million for GPT-6 Astra and $0.0090 for Laguna S 2.1, against full input rates of $10.00 and $0.090. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.

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.