GPT-5.6 Terra

GALatest mini

by OpenAI · GPT-5 family · best for GPT-5.5-class results at a mid-tier price

CodingReasoningMultimodalLong-Context
8.5
AI Panel Score
Value 8.4/10

GPT-5.6 Terra is the middle model of OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, released to the API on 2026-07-09 alongside GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-5.6 Luna. OpenAI describes it as the model that "balances intelligence and cost" and says it "roughly corresponds to the mini model tier used in earlier GPT-5 families"; its deprecations page names it the replacement for gpt-5-mini and o4-mini. The price does not match the label: at $2/$12 per 1M tokens it costs about 2.7x GPT-5.4 mini and sits against Claude Sonnet 5. Capability does not match the label either. Artificial Analysis scores Terra 42 on its Intelligence Index at max effort, ahead of GPT-5.5 at xhigh (38) and Claude Sonnet 5 at max (38), and 30 at the default medium effort. The one-sentence buyer's take: Terra delivers GPT-5.5-class results at a mid-tier price, but it is not a like-for-like replacement for the budget mini tier, and its results depend heavily on the reasoning effort you pay for.

What's new

  • Against GPT-5.4 mini, Terra is a large step up in both capability and price. On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, Terra at the default medium effort (30) already beats GPT-5.4 mini at its highest xhigh setting (24), and Terra at max reaches 42. The context window grows from 400K to 1.05M tokens (max input from 272K to 922K), the knowledge cutoff moves from 2025-08 to 2026-02-16, and LMArena places Terra at xhigh 18 points above GPT-5.4 mini at high on text (1466 vs 1448). The price moves from $0.75/$4.50 to $2/$12. Terra also brings the GPT-5.6 platform changes: programmatic tool calling, explicit prompt-caching breakpoints (cache writes now bill at 1.25x input), persisted reasoning across turns on by default, a new max reasoning effort, an optional pro reasoning mode billed at standard token rates, multi-agent orchestration in beta, and image input at original resolution. OpenAI cut Terra's price by 20% on 2026-07-30, and Fast mode (2x price, up to 2.5x faster) has covered Terra's long-context requests since 2026-08-05.

Benchmarks

BenchmarkScoreSource
Humanity's Last Exam42.9%artificialanalysis.ai 2026-09-21T00:00:00.000Z
TAU-bench86.3%artificialanalysis.ai 2026-09-21T00:00:00.000Z
LMArena Elo1466lmarena.ai 2026-09-13T00:00:00.000Z
GPQA Diamond92.5%artificialanalysis.ai 2026-09-21T00:00:00.000Z
Terminal-Bench88%artificialanalysis.ai 2026-09-21T00:00:00.000Z
LMArena Coding Elo1518lmarena.ai 2026-09-13T00:00:00.000Z
Artificial Analysis Index42artificialanalysis.ai 2026-09-21T00:00:00.000Z

AI Panel Review

Six personas, six verdicts — the same panel that reviews every product on TopReviewed.

Decision Maker9/10
“OpenAI's named replacement for gpt-5-mini and o4-mini, with 1.05M context and full tooling, but priced like a mid-tier model, not a mini.”

Terra is where OpenAI steers most mid-tier traffic: its deprecations page names it the replacement for gpt-5-mini (shutdown 2026-12-11) and for o4-mini and gpt-3.5-turbo (shutdown 2026-10-23), so many teams face a migration decision this quarter. Strategically it is a sound default: 1.05M context, the full Responses tool surface, Microsoft Foundry and Amazon Bedrock availability at launch, and independent scores at GPT-5.5 level when run at xhigh. The catch is budget, because the mini label hides a 2.7x list-price step over GPT-5.4 mini. Plan Terra as a cheaper GPT-5.5, and test GPT-5.6 Luna first for cost-driven gpt-5-mini traffic.

Strategic Fit 9Vendor Risk 8Roadmap Confidence 8.5
Pros
  • named replacement path for deprecated OpenAI models
  • available on OpenAI, Azure and Bedrock
  • GPT-5.5-level independent scores at xhigh for a fraction of GPT-5.5's cost
Cons
  • about 2.7x the list price of the mini tier it replaces
  • no dated snapshot to pin
Right for: teams consolidating deprecated OpenAI models onto one current mid-tier default
Avoid if: you are migrating gpt-5-mini traffic purely on cost; test Luna first
Domain Strategist8.8/10
“At max effort Terra leads its mid-tier rivals on Artificial Analysis's index, but Gemini 3.8 Flash comes within a point for far less money.”

Terra's name says mini and its price says mid-tier, and independent tests place it a tier higher. At max effort it scores 42 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, ahead of Gemini 3.8 Flash at high (41), DeepSeek V4.1-Flash at max (39.5), GPT-5.5 at xhigh (38) and Claude Sonnet 5 at max (38). On LMArena human preference, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads (1493 vs 1466 on text) and Sonnet 5 ties. Terra's other advantages are distribution and tooling: OpenAI's recommended balance model, Azure and Bedrock availability in launch week, computer use, hosted shell, programmatic tool calling and multi-agent orchestration. Its weakness is price, because two rivals come close for less.

Competitive Positioning 9Differentiation 8.5Market Timing 8.5
Pros
  • leads mid-tier rivals on the Artificial Analysis index at max effort
  • OpenAI distribution plus Azure and Bedrock
  • deepest hosted tool surface in its price band
Cons
  • Gemini 3.8 Flash leads on human preference and price
  • DeepSeek V4.1-Flash is close on the index at a fraction of the cost
Right for: OpenAI-standardised products that need near-flagship capability across clouds
Avoid if: score per dollar is your only buying criterion
Finance Lead7.6/10
“Terra lists at 2.7x GPT-5.4 mini, yet at medium effort it beats mini's best score for less total spend; DeepSeek and Gemini still undercut it.”

List price first: $2/$12 is 2.67x GPT-5.4 mini and 6-8x gpt-5-mini, which OpenAI retires on 2026-12-11 with Terra as the named replacement. For simple, token-light work that GPT-5.4 mini already handles, that is a straight 2.7x increase. Per result the picture changes: Artificial Analysis spent $447 running its index on Terra at medium (score 30) against $1,438 for GPT-5.4 mini at xhigh (24), and $1,187 on Terra at xhigh (38) against $5,294 for GPT-5.5 at xhigh (38). DeepSeek V4.1-Flash scored 39.5 for $477 and Gemini 3.8 Flash 41 for $1,623, so Terra is not the value leader.

Cost Efficiency 7Pricing Transparency 8Value per Dollar 8
Pros
  • GPT-5.5-level index scores for under a quarter of GPT-5.5's run cost
  • medium effort outscores GPT-5.4 mini at lower total spend
  • Batch and Flex at $1/$6
Cons
  • 2.7x the list price of the mini tier it replaces
  • long-context and cache-write surcharges
  • DeepSeek V4.1-Flash and Gemini 3.8 Flash deliver similar scores for less
Right for: teams moving down from GPT-5.5 or GPT-5.4, or up from a maxed-out GPT-5.4 mini
Avoid if: your workload is simple, token-light traffic that GPT-5.4 mini or Luna already handles
Domain Practitioner9.2/10
“The full GPT-5.6 toolkit at a mid-tier price: computer use, hosted shell, apply_patch, MCP, tool search, persisted reasoning and max effort.”

Terra ships the same API surface as GPT-5.6 Sol: Responses, Chat Completions and Batch, with web search, file search, code interpreter, hosted shell, apply_patch, skills, computer use, MCP and tool search. GPT-5.6 adds programmatic tool calling, explicit cache breakpoints, persisted reasoning across turns (on by default) and effort levels from none to max, plus an optional pro mode billed at standard token rates. Reasoning items carry across Sol, Terra and Luna, so routing between tiers mid-conversation keeps context. Practical gotchas: cache writes now cost money, max input is 922K rather than the full 1.05M, fine-tuning is unsupported, and there is no dated snapshot to pin.

API Ergonomics 9Tool/Agent Support 9.5Reliability 8.5
Pros
  • widest hosted tool list in its tier
  • reasoning shared across Sol, Terra and Luna
  • Chat Completions still supported
Cons
  • no fine-tuning
  • no dated snapshot
  • safety classifiers can pause streams for several seconds
Right for: agent builders standardising on the Responses API
Avoid if: you need fine-tuning or a frozen model version
Power User8.7/10
“In head-to-head voting Terra lands level with GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 5, clearly ahead of GPT-5.4 mini, and it is more concise by default.”

On LMArena's text leaderboard (2026-09-13), Terra at xhigh effort scores 1466, level with GPT-5.4 (1466) and Claude Sonnet 5 at high effort (1461), and 18 points above GPT-5.4 mini at high effort (1448). Coding (1518) and vision (1267) follow the same pattern. At the default medium effort, Artificial Analysis measures about 92 tokens per second with a 2-second first token, which feels responsive in chat; at max, answers can take minutes to start. OpenAI says GPT-5.6 is more concise by default than GPT-5.5. The safety classifiers occasionally block or delay dual-use security and biology requests.

Output Quality 8.5Speed 8Everyday Usefulness 8.5
Pros
  • GPT-5.4-level answer quality in blind voting
  • responsive at default effort
  • strong image understanding for its price
Cons
  • arena score measured at xhigh effort
  • safety pauses on dual-use topics
Right for: assistant and drafting backends that have outgrown GPT-5.4 mini
Avoid if: you need Gemini-class tokens-per-second
Skeptic7.8/10
“Mini tier is a naming choice, not a price point, and the headline scores assume max effort; at the default setting Terra scores far lower.”

Three claims deserve scrutiny. First, OpenAI's "roughly corresponds to the mini model tier" describes Terra's slot in the lineup, not its price, which is 2.7x GPT-5.4 mini. Second, the GPT-5.5-level claim from AWS and Microsoft holds at high effort settings: Artificial Analysis puts Terra at xhigh level with GPT-5.5 at xhigh (38 each), but at the default medium Terra scores 30, below GPT-5.5 at medium (34). Third, Terra guesses rather than abstains: AA-Omniscience records an 88% hallucination rate, against 39% for Claude Sonnet 5 and 55% for Gemini 3.8 Flash. OpenAI's own system card also shows weaker overwrite-avoidance than Sol and GPT-5.5.

Claim Accuracy 8Weakness Severity 7Hype vs Reality 8
Pros
  • independent tests back the GPT-5.5-level claim at xhigh
  • pricing and limits are clearly documented
Cons
  • default medium effort scores far below max
  • high hallucination rate on AA-Omniscience
  • mini naming obscures the price
Right for: buyers who set effort per task and verify factual output
Avoid if: you need a model that declines when unsure

Strengths

  • Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 42 at max effort, ahead of every mid-tier rival compared on this page, and 38 at xhigh, level with GPT-5.5 at xhigh for under a quarter of the run cost.
  • At the default medium effort it outscores GPT-5.4 mini at xhigh (30 vs 24) for less total spend in the same test.
  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 at 88.0% (independent), ahead of GPT-5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.
  • 1.05M context with 922K usable input, up from 400K on GPT-5.4 mini.
  • Widest hosted tool surface in its price band: computer use, hosted shell, apply_patch, MCP, tool search, skills and programmatic tool calling.
  • Available on OpenAI, Microsoft Foundry and Amazon Bedrock (including GovCloud) from launch week.
  • Batch and Flex at $1/$6, and cached reads at $0.20.

Limitations

  • About 2.7x the list price of GPT-5.4 mini and 6-8x gpt-5-mini, the models it replaces on OpenAI's own deprecation list.
  • Results swing with effort: 30 on the AA index at medium against 42 at max, where the first token can take minutes.
  • High hallucination rate on AA-Omniscience (88%, against 39% for Claude Sonnet 5): it tends to guess rather than decline.
  • Prompts over 272K tokens bill at 2x input and 1.5x output for the whole request, and cache writes cost 1.25x input.
  • No dated snapshot to pin and no fine-tuning.
  • Real-time safety classifiers can block or pause dual-use security and biology work.
  • The system card shows weaker overwrite-avoidance than Sol and GPT-5.5 on complex agentic edits (0.81 vs 0.83 and 0.88).

Best use cases

  • Stepping down from GPT-5.5 or GPT-5.4. At xhigh, Terra matches GPT-5.5 at xhigh on the Artificial Analysis index for a fraction of the spend, with a larger usable context than GPT-5.4 mini.
  • Agentic coding and terminal work. Terminal-Bench 2.1 at 88% plus the full Responses tool surface suits coding agents and multi-step automation that do not need Sol's ceiling.
  • Long-document analysis up to about 900K tokens. Whole codebases or large contract sets fit in one request, as long as the 2x long-context rate is budgeted.
  • Multi-cloud OpenAI deployments. Organisations that must run inside Azure or AWS commitments, including US GovCloud, can use the same model on each.

Deep dive

The full research notes behind this review — verified against primary sources.

Architecture

OpenAI discloses no parameter count, layer count, attention type or training scale for Terra, so those fields are null. The public facts are operational: a 1,050,000-token window with a 922,000-token input cap and 128,000-token output cap, text and image input, text output, and reasoning tokens that bill as output. Reasoning items can be reused across Sol, Terra and Luna but not with GPT-5.5, which suggests the three models share a reasoning format. The GPT-5.6 system card calls Terra "a capable lower-cost option" and says Sol and Terra are served with newly added activation classifiers that monitor internal activations during generation. Images are processed at original dimensions up to 65,535 pixels per side, within a 30,000-patch limit.

Capabilities

All Artificial Analysis (AA) figures below are at max effort unless stated; AA tests each effort level separately, and the default medium setting scores lower. Coding (9.0): 88.0% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (72.3% at medium), ahead of GPT-5.5 at xhigh (84.3%) and Claude Sonnet 5 at max (80.5%) and level with Gemini 3.8 Flash at high (87.6%); SciCode 55.0%; LMArena coding 1518 at xhigh, level with Sonnet 5 at high (1520). Reasoning (9.0): GPQA Diamond 92.5% and Humanity's Last Exam 42.9% (87.2% and 33.3% at medium), in line with GPT-5.4 at xhigh (92.0% and 43.7%). Math (8.6) has no verified competition-math score and is set from the reasoning results. Agentic (9.0): τ²-Bench Telecom 86.3% (72.8% at medium), below GPT-5.5 at xhigh (93.9%), plus the widest hosted tool list in its price band: computer use, hosted shell, apply_patch, code interpreter, MCP, tool search, skills and programmatic tool calling. OpenAI's system card adds a caution: on its destructive-actions test Terra avoids overwriting user data at 0.81, against 0.83 for Sol and 0.88 for GPT-5.5, and scores 0.37 on avoidance plus correctness, against 0.44 for both. Long context (8.6): 83% on AA-LCR (74% at medium) with 922K usable input. Vision (8.5): MMMU-Pro 80.7%, above GPT-5.5 at xhigh (79.9%) and Sonnet 5 at max (77.3%) but below Gemini 3.8 Flash at high (85.6%); 1267 on LMArena's vision board. Document/OCR (8.2) benefits from original-resolution image input. Instruction following (8.5): IFBench 71.2% (62.2% at medium), below GPT-5.5 at xhigh (75.9%) and GPT-5.4 mini at xhigh (73.3%). Function calling (9.0): OpenAI's GPT-Red testing gives a 0.061% direct prompt-injection success rate and 0.946 on search and function-calling injection robustness, the best in the GPT-5.6 family. Safety calibration (8.0): refusals are well calibrated in OpenAI's testing, but AA-Omniscience records an 88% hallucination rate (a wrong answer rather than an abstention on questions it cannot answer correctly), against 39% for Sonnet 5 at max and 55% for Gemini 3.8 Flash at high. Real-time data (6.8) comes from the web search tool. On OpenAI's length-adjusted HealthBench Professional, Terra scores 57.7, against 51.8 for GPT-5.5 and 60.5 for Sol (vendor-reported).

Benchmark analysis

Benchmark Score: max (medium) vs Predecessor (GPT-5.4 mini, xhigh) vs Top Competitor Source
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3.2 42 (30) 24 (20 at medium) Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) 41; GPT-5.5 (xhigh) 38; Claude Sonnet 5 (max) 38 Artificial Analysis
GPQA Diamond 92.5% (87.2%) 87.5% Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) 95.3%; Claude Sonnet 5 (max) 91.1% Artificial Analysis
Humanity's Last Exam 42.9% (33.3%) 28.1% Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) 47.8%; Claude Sonnet 5 (max) 41.3% Artificial Analysis
Terminal-Bench 2.1 88.0% (72.3%) 59.2% Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) 87.6%; GPT-5.5 (xhigh) 84.3%; Claude Sonnet 5 (max) 80.5% Artificial Analysis
τ²-Bench Telecom 86.3% (72.8%) 83.3% GPT-5.5 (xhigh) 93.9% Artificial Analysis
AA-LCR (long context) 83.0% (74.0%) 77.0% DeepSeek V4.1-Flash (max) 84.0%; Claude Sonnet 5 (max) 82.0% Artificial Analysis
MMMU-Pro 80.7% (76.8%) 73.3% Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) 85.6%; Claude Sonnet 5 (max) 77.3% Artificial Analysis
IFBench 71.2% (62.2%) 73.3% GPT-5.5 (xhigh) 75.9% Artificial Analysis
LMArena Text Elo (xhigh) 1466 ±5, rank 45 of 402 1448 (high) Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) 1493; Claude Sonnet 5 (high) 1461 LMArena Text, 2026-09-13
LMArena Coding Elo (xhigh) 1518 ±8 1496 (high) Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) 1535 ±16; Claude Sonnet 5 (high) 1520 LMArena Text: Coding, 2026-09-13
LMArena Vision Elo (xhigh) 1267 ±8 1252 (high) Claude Sonnet 5 (high) 1266 LMArena Vision, 2026-09-13
HealthBench Professional, length-adjusted (vendor-reported) 57.7 n/a GPT-5.5 51.8; GPT-5.6 Sol 60.5 GPT-5.6 System Card

Artificial Analysis figures were read on 2026-09-21 and are all independent measurements; the front-matter stores the max-effort results from the page cited. Each competitor is shown at the effort level named. The arena entries test Terra at xhigh, and Gemini 3.8 Flash's arena ratings rest on far fewer votes (5,076 text and 1,434 coding, against 28,119 and 7,783 for Terra), so its lead carries wider error bars. MMMU-Pro, IFBench and AA-LCR are different tests from the template's MMMU, IFEval and MRCR keys, which stay null, as do MMLU-Pro, AIME 2025, SWE-bench Verified, LiveCodeBench and Aider Polyglot.

Speed & latency

Artificial Analysis measures Terra on OpenAI's own API at 91.8 output tokens/sec with 2.0 s to the first token at the default medium effort (the front-matter values). At high it measures 89.4 tokens/sec and 3.2 s, at xhigh 98.4 tokens/sec and 18.4 s, and at max 106.5 tokens/sec with about 224 s before the first token, because hidden reasoning runs first. That is slower per token than Gemini 3.8 Flash at high (329 tokens/sec) and DeepSeek V4.1-Flash at max (226), faster than Claude Sonnet 5 at high (71), and about half the 176 tokens/sec of GPT-5.4 mini at medium. OpenAI states that Fast mode runs up to 2.5x faster than Standard at twice the price, including for prompts over 272K tokens. The GPT-5.6 safety classifiers can also pause a stream for several seconds on sensitive cyber or biology content. latency_tier is medium at the default effort; treat xhigh and max as batch settings.

Pricing analysis

Surface Cost Notes
API input $2.00 / 1M tok prompts up to 272K input tokens
API output $12.00 / 1M tok hidden reasoning tokens bill as output
Cached input $0.20 / 1M tok 90% off input
Cache writes $2.50 / 1M tok 1.25x input; new with GPT-5.6
Long context (>272K input) $4.00 in / $18.00 out 2x input and 1.5x output for the whole request; cached $0.40, writes $5.00
Batch (in/out) $1.00 / $6.00 50% off
Flex (in/out) $1.00 / $6.00 lower priority, same as Batch
Fast mode (in/out) $4.00 / $24.00 2x Standard; replaced Priority on 2026-07-30
Regional processing +10% US and EU processing endpoints
Image input billed as input tokens original-resolution images use more tokens
Built-in tools web search $10 / 1K calls; file search $2.50 / 1K calls containers from $0.03 per 20-minute session
Direct UI n/a API model; the model page lists no ChatGPT plan
Free tier none (API)
Rate limits 500 RPM / 500K TPM Tier 1; Tier 5 is 15,000 RPM / 40M TPM

What it costs in practice: 10M input and 2M output tokens a day, uncached, is about $44 on Terra, against $16.50 on GPT-5.4 mini, $55 on GPT-5.4, $40 on Claude Sonnet 5, $15 on Gemini 3.8 Flash at its introductory rate through 2026-12-31 ($30 from 2027-01-01) and $5.40 on DeepSeek V4.1-Flash at peak rates. Effort matters as much as list price, because reasoning tokens bill as output. Artificial Analysis spent $447 running its Intelligence Index on Terra at medium (score 30), $1,187 at xhigh (38) and $2,501 at max (42). The same run cost $1,438 on GPT-5.4 mini at xhigh (24), $5,294 on GPT-5.5 at xhigh (38), $6,998 on Claude Sonnet 5 at max (38), $1,623 on Gemini 3.8 Flash at high (41, introductory price) and $477 on DeepSeek V4.1-Flash at max (39.5). On Amazon Bedrock, global cross-Region inference matches OpenAI's rates, and in-Region or geographic inference adds 10% ($2.20/$13.20).

Deployment & access

Terra is API-only and proprietary: no open weights, no self-hosting, no fine-tuning. On OpenAI it is served through the Responses API, Chat Completions and Batch; Realtime, Assistants and fine-tuning endpoints are not supported. Only one snapshot exists, gpt-5.6-terra, so there is no dated version to pin. Microsoft made the GPT-5.6 family GA in Microsoft Foundry on 2026-07-09 in Global Standard and Data Zones Standard deployments, including a new Asia-Pacific Data Zone. Amazon Bedrock made Terra GA on 2026-07-13 in US East (N. Virginia), US East (Ohio) and US West (Oregon) through cross-Region inference profiles (us.openai.gpt-5.6-terra, global.openai.gpt-5.6-terra), and in AWS GovCloud (US-West and US-East) on 2026-08-24. Bedrock lists the model as EOL no sooner than 2027-07-13 and does not offer Priority or Flex tiers for it. OpenAI's own regional processing covers the United States and Europe (EEA + Switzerland) for Terra; EU processing requires Zero Data Retention, Modified Abuse Monitoring, Eyes Off or Safety Retention. OpenRouter routes Terra to OpenAI, Azure and Bedrock.

Safety & privacy

Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, OpenAI treats Terra as High capability in both Cybersecurity and Biological and Chemical risk, below Critical, and deploys safeguards matched to that level. Sol and Terra carry newly added activation classifiers that can pause streaming while a second check decides whether to block the output; a two-tier topical classifier and safety reasoner covers all three GPT-5.6 models. The system card reports that GPT-5.6 models show a greater tendency than GPT-5.5 to go beyond the user's intent in agentic coding, although absolute rates stay low. It also reports strong refusal on harmful cyber requests from production data (0.987 not-unsafe) and a low over-refusal rate on benign advanced biology (0.978 not-overrefuse). API data is not used for training unless you opt in; abuse-monitoring logs are kept for up to 30 days, and Chat Completions and Responses are eligible for Zero Data Retention. OpenAI offers BAA coverage for eligible configurations, though web search with live internet access is not HIPAA-eligible. compliance is left null because no certification list is recorded for this page; check OpenAI's trust portal for SOC 2 and ISO status. Send a stable safety_identifier for end-user traffic, as OpenAI recommends.

Ecosystem & tooling

Official OpenAI SDKs cover Python, TypeScript, Java, Go and .NET, and the OpenAI Agents SDK supports the Responses tool surface directly. Microsoft positions GPT-5.6 in Foundry Agent Service with the Microsoft Agent Framework, and standard OpenAI-compatible integrations such as LangChain, LlamaIndex and Vercel AI SDK work with the model ID. On OpenRouter, the apps sending the most Terra traffic as of 2026-09-21 are Framer (868B tokens), Hermes Agent (114B) and Codex (108B). OpenAI's models page recommends Terra for workloads that "balance intelligence and cost", and its deprecation notices route a long list of retiring models to it, so adoption is set to grow through the 2026 shutdowns. Popularity tier: mainstream.

Buyer questions

Is Terra really the new mini tier?

OpenAI says it roughly corresponds to the mini tier and names it the replacement for gpt-5-mini and o4-mini. At $2/$12 it costs about 2.7x GPT-5.4 mini, and independent tests put it at GPT-5.5 level at xhigh, so treat it as a mid-tier model.

What should I move gpt-5-mini traffic to before 2026-12-11?

OpenAI names Terra, but Terra costs 6-8x gpt-5-mini per token. For cost-sensitive traffic, test GPT-5.6 Luna ($0.20/$1.20) first and reserve Terra for tasks where Luna falls short.

Which reasoning effort should I use?

Medium is the default and scored 30 on the Artificial Analysis index for a $447 run; xhigh scored 38 for $1,187 and max 42 for $2,501, with first tokens taking minutes at max. Start at medium or high and move up only where your evals show a gain.

How much does long context cost?

Prompts over 272K input tokens bill at 2x input and 1.5x output for the whole request ($4/$18). Usable input tops out at 922K tokens, below the 1.05M total window.

Does prompt caching still save money?

Cached reads cost $0.20, 90% off, but GPT-5.6 bills cache writes at 1.25x input. Use explicit cache breakpoints so you only write prefixes you will reuse.

Where can I run it besides OpenAI?

Microsoft Foundry (Global Standard and Data Zones, including Asia-Pacific) and Amazon Bedrock (US regions and GovCloud). Bedrock's in-Region pricing adds 10%, and only the gpt-5.6-terra alias exists, with no dated snapshot.

Is my data used for training?

No. OpenAI does not train on API data unless you opt in, Chat Completions and Responses are eligible for Zero Data Retention, and US and EU regional processing is available for Terra.

Why was a legitimate security request blocked?

GPT-5.6 runs real-time cyber and biology classifiers that can pause or block output on dual-use topics. OpenAI's Trusted Access for Cyber and Daybreak programmes give vetted security teams access with fewer safeguards.

Comparable models

Claude Sonnet 5 — Anthropic

the price peer ($2/$10, 1M context, released 2026-06-30). It ties Terra on LMArena (1461 text, 1520 coding at high) and trails on the Artificial Analysis index (38 at max against Terra's 42), and its max-effort index run cost $6,998 against Terra's $2,501. It wins on factual caution (39% hallucination rate on AA-Omniscience against 88%) and is 17% cheaper on output. Anthropic's Claude Haiku 4.5 ($1/$5, 200K context) is the budget option in that lineup but scores far lower (17 on the index, 1415 on LMArena text).

Gemini 3.8 Flash — Google

within a point on the Artificial Analysis index (41 at high) at an introductory $0.75/$3.75 through 2026-12-31 ($1.50/$7.50 from 2027), with a higher LMArena score (1493 text, on fewer votes), 329 tokens/sec output and audio, video and PDF input. Terra wins on max output (128,000 vs 65,536 tokens), price certainty after the introductory period, and OpenAI's hosted tool set.

DeepSeek V4.1-Flash — DeepSeek

39.5 on the Artificial Analysis index at max for a $477 run, at $0.30/$1.20 peak (half that off-peak), with MIT-licensed open weights, a 1M context and 384K max output. Terra wins on enterprise cloud availability, hosted tools and factual caution (DeepSeek's AA-Omniscience hallucination rate is 97%).

GPT-5.4 mini — OpenAI

the predecessor at $0.75/$4.50 remains GA with no deprecation. It is 2.7x cheaper per token but scores 24 on the Artificial Analysis index even at xhigh, and its 400K context (272K input) caps long-document work; it stays the better pick for simple, high-volume traffic.

Sources

Primary references used to verify this review.

Model specs

Input price
$2 / Mtok
Output price
$12 / Mtok
Cached input
$0.20 / Mtok
Batch (in/out)
$1 / $6
Context window
1.1M tokens
Max output
128K tokens
Knowledge cutoff
2026-02
Released
2026-07-09
Modalities
text, image → text
Output speed
~91.8 tok/s
License
Proprietary
Clouds
Azure OpenAI, Azure AI Foundry, Bedrock

Does not train on API inputs by default

Last verified 2026-09-21