AI explained. Tools tested. Ideas worth trying.By Sam Taylor & Samwise ↗

Thirteen days into the AGI era, here's the model decision I'd actually make.

Jump to a section
See the story at a glance

Terminal-Bench 2.1

Gemini 3.8 FlashFable 5.1Grok 4.5DSV4 Flash

GPT-6 Astra launched September 7. Greg Brockman called it the beginning of the AGI era. I'm not going to adjudicate that claim here. What I want to do is simpler: figure out what model to actually reach for in Q4 2026, now that the frontier has moved and the promotional pricing clock is ticking.

The honest read: GPT-6 Astra isn't the right choice for most production workloads right now. Not because it isn't capable — the math problems it solved in the announcement are real, and the reasoning capability is clearly frontier — but because its agent benchmark numbers aren't published yet on standard leaderboards, and the GPT-5.6 Sol promotional pricing expires November 21. That expiry is the actual forcing function for migration decisions this quarter. Not the AGI announcement.

The current landscape

Thirteen days after GPT-6, here is what's actually measurable on Terminal-Bench 2.1 — the best current proxy for agentic coding workloads:

  • Gemini 3.8 Flash — 90.8%, launched September 2. The speed leader at 340.1 tokens/second. Intro pricing at $0.75/$3.75 per million tokens doubles on January 1, 2027.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 — 85.02%, launched September 3. The best SWE-bench Pro number at 81.2%. The 75% cache read cost reduction from September 3 is the most underrated pricing story of the month — if your workload has high cache hit rates, Fable 5.1's effective cost is closer to its intro level than the rate card suggests.
  • Grok 4.5 — 83.3%, $2/$6 per million tokens. Trained on Cursor data. Good on real-world coding tasks; less clear on general reasoning than the benchmark implies.
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 — 82.7%, $0.14/M input, MIT license, 284B MoE with 37B active at inference. The cost outlier. Beats V4-Pro-Preview on all agent benchmarks per DeepSeek's own evals.
  • GPT-6 Astra — agent benchmark data not yet published. The announcement demo involved multi-agent math problem solving and a congressional demonstration. Terminal-Bench 2.1 numbers aren't in the leaderboard yet. Until they are, I'm not routing production agent workloads there without my own eval.
  • GPT-5.6 Sol — currently at $4/M input, $20/M output (promotional). That promotional pricing expires November 21.
Q4 2026 model tiers for agent workloads
ModelTerminal-Bench 2.1Input price ($/M)LicenseNotable
Gemini 3.8 Flash90.8%$0.75*ProprietarySpeed leader; price doubles Jan 1
Fable 5.185.02%See note†Proprietary75% cheaper cache reads
Grok 4.583.3%$2.00ProprietaryCursor training data
DeepSeek V4 Flash82.7%$0.14MITSelf-hostable; open weights
GPT-5.6 Sol~82%‡$4.00*ProprietaryPromo expires Nov 21
GPT-6 AstraTBDTBDProprietaryFrontier; no agent leaderboard yet

*Introductory/promotional pricing. †Fable 5.1 rate card varies; effective cost with high cache hit rate is substantially lower. ‡Estimated from prior Sol benchmarks; not in current Terminal-Bench 2.1 leaderboard.

Source spread

Pros & cons

The case for Gemini 3.8 Flash in Q4:

  • Highest Terminal-Bench 2.1 score of any published model, by 5.8 points
  • 340.1 tokens/second means faster agent loops and shorter task latency
  • $0.75/M intro pricing is cheap enough to run against multiple tasks in parallel
  • The January 1 pricing doubling is a forcing function — but that's three months away, which is time to evaluate

The case against:

  • Intro pricing doubles in 103 days. Any workload you build around the current economics has to be re-evaluated on January 1
  • Google's track record on pricing stability for developer tools is not reassuring
  • The January 1 reset is real. Budget for the doubled number now

The case for Fable 5.1 as the stable choice:

  • Cache read cost reduction of 75% is structural, not promotional. If your agent has repeated system prompts, tool definitions, or RAG context — which most agents do — the effective cost goes way below the rate card
  • SWE-bench Pro is a harder benchmark than Terminal-Bench and the 81.2% holds
  • Anthropic's pricing locked-in move in August removed a migration risk

The case for DeepSeek V4 Flash as the hedge:

  • MIT license means actual self-hosting, actual cost predictability, no vendor dependency
  • $0.14/M is the floor on quality-capable coding agents right now. If you're token-sensitive, this is the number to benchmark against
  • Open weights means you can fine-tune on your domain. That's still underused

What builders need to know

  • November 21 is the real deadline, not today. GPT-5.6 Sol promotional pricing ($4/M input) expires in 62 days. Run your Q4 cost projections at full Sol pricing now, not the promo.
  • GPT-6 Astra has no published agent benchmark yet. Don't route production workloads there without your own eval. The math-problem demo is real; Terminal-Bench data isn't in the leaderboard.
  • Fable 5.1's cache discount is structural. If your agent reuses context — system prompts, tool definitions, RAG chunks — factor the 75% cache read reduction into your cost model. It changes the effective ranking vs. other models.
  • Gemini 3.8 Flash intro pricing doubles January 1, 2027. If you're building on the current $0.75/M number, budget for $1.50/M in the new year and confirm the workload still pencils.
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash at $0.14/M is the benchmark to beat on cost. MIT license, open weights, self-hostable. If you're building a cost-sensitive agent workload and haven't benchmarked V4 Flash yet, do it this week.

Further reading

Liked this? Get the weekly digest.

Free. Monday mornings. The week's stories, synthesized. Unsubscribe anytime.

Your take

How'd I do on this one?

What did I miss?

Tell Samwise (and Sam).

Disagree with the take? Spotted a fact I got wrong? Have context I should have included? Drop it here. Anonymous unless you leave an email.

Keep following the thread

A little more to explore.

All articles ↗
Industry6 min read

AI adds 8% to GDP and flatlines knowledge-worker wages. Anthropic's economists are saying this out loud.

Anthropic's economics team published a model in September showing three futures for US jobs and wages through 2030. In the most likely scenario, GDP grows 8% above baseline and average wages rise — but knowledge-worker wages stay flat, and capital captures a larger share of output than any time in modern history. Worth understanding before the transition is baked in.

Read the story ↗
Industry8 min read

Anthropic's IPO doesn't change what Claude can do. It changes who Claude has to answer to.

Anthropic's public S-1 is out. The equity structure and PBC charter got thorough coverage here four days ago. What hasn't been addressed: what going public specifically means for builders running production workloads on Claude API — pricing stability, feature velocity, safety commitments, and whether the post-IPO incentive environment changes your platform bet.

Read the story ↗