GPT-6 Astra (3 Sep 2026): $10/$50 per million tokens, $1 cached input, 1.05M context, screen-driven computer use, Critical cyber rating. What changes for you.
GPT-6 Astra is live as of 3 September 2026. API model ID gpt-6-astra, $10 per million input tokens, $50 per million output, $1 per million cached input, batch at half price, and a Fast mode at 2× ($20/$100). The context window is 1,050,000 tokens with 922,000 max input and 128,000 max output. Two things are genuinely new: Astra operates software through screens rather than APIs (OSWorld 2.0: 72.6% vs 65.7% for GPT-5.6 Sol), and it is the first OpenAI model rated “Critical” on the cybersecurity axis of the Preparedness Framework, which means enterprise admins must switch it on manually.
OpenAI paired the launch with the phrase “the AGI era”, which you can ignore. The pricing, the context arithmetic and the rollout gates are what change your week. Sources: OpenAI’s launch materials as summarised by DataNorth and LLM-Stats, plus the model card figures quoted below.
Pricing next to the models you are already using
| Model | Input / MTok | Cached input | Output / MTok | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-6 Astra | $10 | $1.00 | $50 | 1.05M |
| GPT-6 Astra Fast | $20 | — | $100 | 1.05M |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | $10 | $0.25 | $50 | 1M |
| Claude Opus 5 | $5 | $0.50 | $25 | 1M |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | $0.75 (to 31 Dec 2026) | — | $3.75 | 1M |
Astra and Fable 5.1 have identical base prices. The gap is the cache: Anthropic cut Fable 5.1 cache reads to $0.25 on 1 September, four times cheaper than Astra’s $1.00. For an agent loop that re-reads a 200k-token codebase on every turn, that is $0.05 per turn on Fable versus $0.20 on Astra before you generate a single output token. If your workload is cache-heavy, price it with the AI model cost calculator rather than the headline rate — the headline rate is the same and the bill is not.
Benchmarks: where Astra wins and where it does not
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Astra | Comparison |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 (desktop operation) | 72.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol 65.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 | 57.9% | Claude Fable 5.1 55.8% |
| DeepSWE v1.1 (bug fixing) | 74.1% | Claude Opus 5 73.7% |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.1.1 | 61.2 | Claude Fable 5.1 65.7 |
| ExploitBench | 100% | GPT-5.6 Sol 78.5% |
| Time per agentic task | ~40 min | GPT-5.6 Sol ~75 min |
Read the pattern: Astra’s wins are on tasks where the model drives a computer — desktop operation, terminals, repos — and by narrow margins on coding (0.4 points on DeepSWE, 2.1 on Terminal-Bench). On a broad reasoning index it trails Fable 5.1 by 4.5 points. The 47% reduction in time-per-task versus Sol is the number that will matter most in production: fewer steps means fewer tokens, which partly offsets the cache disadvantage.
There is a cost to fewer steps that OpenAI itself flags. Because Astra writes less reasoning per solution, its chain of thought is less monitorable than its predecessor’s — OpenAI calls the decline “serious”. If your safety story depends on reading the model’s reasoning, that story got weaker with this release.
Comments · 0
Beta: comments are stored locally on your device and not visible to other readers.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.