AI deflation curve

Not what models cost — every comparison site answers that, and it answers the wrong question. Prices fall both because models get cheaper and because they get better. This holds capability constant and lets price move: what it costs today to buy what was frontier twelve months ago.

38× cheaper *

Matching what GPT-5 scored twelve months ago costs $0.090 per million tokens today, from DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731. GPT-5 itself still costs $3.44 — so the same capability is 38× cheaper if you switch. Both prices are today's - the sellers do not keep last year's rate card online.

* Two registries disagree on that price — we show models.dev's figure. Treat the ratio as approximate.

Too little history to call a direction — the readings so far span under a month.

Cheapest at that level today

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

$0.090/Mtok

index 154.49 · DeepInfra · via registry-disputed

The model that set the level

GPT-5

$3.44/Mtok

index 150 · 2025-08-07

The cheapest models we can price108 scored models carry a price

ModelBlended /MtokContext
allam-2-7b$0
GLM-4.5-Flash$0
GLM-4.6V-Flash$0
GLM-4.7-Flash$0
Ternary Bonsai 27B$0
GLM-OCR$0.030
Llama Prompt Guard 2 22M$0.030
gemma-4-E4B-it$0.040
Prompt Guard 2 86M$0.040
Granite 4.0 H Micro$0.041
qwen3.7-flash$0.055
GPT OSS 20B$0.058

Cheapest overall, not filtered to the capability tier — the tier comparison is above. Looking for a particular model rather than the cheapest? Every rate we hold.

The same question, three different bars

The barSet byCheapest todayRatio
what was frontier 6 months agoGPT-5.4 Pro · 2026-03-05GPT-5.6 Terra $4.5015×
what was frontier twelve months agoGPT-5 · 2025-08-07DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 $0.09038×
what was frontier 2 years agoo1-mini · 2024-09-12Qwen3.7 Flash $0.05535×

These are three different measurements rather than one at three precisions: the bar rises as the horizon shortens, so a different model clears it each time — from GPT-5.4 Pro at six months to o1-mini at two years. Read across the three rows they are a price gradient across capability levels on one day, not a trend over time; the trend over time is the reconstruction below.

Two years of the same question, reconstructed

Selling a rate card means never publishing the old one, so a genuine then-versus-now is not on offer from the sellers. The CC-BY-4.0 AI Price Index does record what each seller charged and when, so the question above can be asked of every past day — and this is the answer. These readings are reconstructed, not observed. They are built from a different and narrower set of sellers than the readings at the top of this page, and the two are never drawn on one line: a change of source part-way along a chart of falling prices is indistinguishable from a fall.

1×10×100×
2024-09-146-month bar12-month bar24-month bar2026-09-14

Reconstructed: Down 95% over the 730 days reconstructed. That is the twelve-monthline alone, because the three horizons are three different measurements and one sentence covering all three would be a blend of them. The bar is the closed frontier as it stood that horizon before each date, so it RISES as the line advances — GPT-4 set the twelve-month bar in September 2024 and GPT-5 sets it now. A fall here is the falling cost of each date's own bar, not of one fixed model.

421 of 2013 reconstructed readings carry no ratio — on those days either nothing priced cleared the bar or the model that set it was not priced by the index — and the line is broken there rather than carried across.

The barEarliest ratioLatest ratioDaysWith a ratio
what was frontier 6 months ago7.8×2024-10-0815×2026-09-14706558 of 731
what was frontier twelve months ago143×2024-09-147.6×2026-09-14730607 of 731
what was frontier 2 years ago214×2025-03-1335×2026-09-14550427 of 551

Each line is one bar followed back through time, so the bar itself rises as the line advances. Read this as the falling cost of what each date's own horizon demanded, not as one model getting cheaper. The earliest ratios are the thinnest: in September 2024 the licensed index priced seven models Epoch had scored, and by September 2026 it prices 108.

What we published before, and what changed

Until 13 September this page computed its ratio from an aggregator's route price — the price of whichever seller the router happened to use that day. That source is no longer used, for two independent reasons: its terms forbid republishing what we took from it, and it turned out to measure something other than a rate card. Measured over six days of it, no model whose price moved was sold by a single seller, and a third of the movements returned to a price the model had already held.

DateRatio, route pricesCheapest at that level then
2026-09-0655×DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
2026-09-0729×GLM-5.3-Flash
2026-09-0837×DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
2026-09-1037×DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
2026-09-1269×DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
2026-09-1369×DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

The two series are not comparable and the difference is not a correction. The old reading for 13 September was 69× on route prices; the same day answers 38×on rate cards, because a router can route to whichever seller is cheapest at that moment and no seller's published card offers that. The cheap end of this market turns out to be a routing outcome rather than a list price, and that is worth saying rather than quietly swapping one number for the other.

We also publish the price rises sellers have announced in advance. When one of those dates arrives, this page is where we will say whether the price actually moved as they said it would.

How it is measured

Both prices are today's. Sellers do not keep last year's rate card online, and the licensed index that does record price history covers only some models — so a genuine then-versus-now is not available for every model, and this does not pretend otherwise. What it compares is the cheapest model that clears the old frontier's level against what the model that set that level still costs — both current, both checkable. The observed series starts the day the stage first ran and accrues forward; the two-year history further up is reconstructed from the licensed index's dated records and is kept as its own series.

The reconstruction prices each past day, it does not observe it. For a date in the past, the bar is the closed frontier as Epoch had it then — Epoch dates every score, so that half needs no price history at all — and both prices are the ones the CC-BY-4.0 AI Price Index records as effective on that date. Nothing about it is mixed into the readings at the top of this page, because the two use different seller sets: the observed series carries seven sellers read first-hand and two registries, the reconstruction carries the licensed index alone. On 14 September the twelve-month bar answered 38× here and 7.6× reconstructed, and the whole of that gap is one disputed registry row the licensed index does not carry. A model also does not enter a reconstructed reading before Epoch dates it, so nothing from 2026 can be the cheapest thing clearing a 2024 bar.

A seller's own dated price wins over the index's copy of it in the reconstruction, exactly as it does everywhere else — but no first-party row we hold can currently be applied to a past date, because a price can only be dated by the day the seller says it took effect and all 456 first-party rows carry no such date. The day we first read a page is when we found out, not when the price changed, and back-projecting it would put today's prices onto two years of history. So the reconstruction is the licensed index throughout, every row records that it applied no first-party number, and the rule will start doing work the moment a seller publishes an effective date.

Blended 3:1 input:output, the field's convention, and held fixed across the whole series. The ratio is stored with every price we record, so changing the convention later cannot silently rewrite this history.

Free and batch tiers are excluded. A rate-limited promotional tier is not a price, and one $0 entry would sink every capability tier to nothing. Batch pricing is roughly half, in exchange for latency measured in hours — a different product, and mixing it in would show a cost halving nobody experiences.

These are the sellers' own published prices. Six labs publish a rate card we can read directly — OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, Google, Z.ai and Voyage. Where a seller publishes no page we may read, the number comes from a source that can be held to account for it instead: DeepSeek from the CC-BY-4.0 AI Price Index, which carries a dated, confidence-marked record for every rate, and Kimi from two independent MIT registries published only where they agree with each other. The cheapest row below names which seller it came from and, where it was not the seller's own page, which kind of source it was.

How much of this is a seller's own number: 287 read from the seller’s own page · 79 cross-checked between two registries · 55 from the licensed index · 37 from a single registry, marked * · 3 where two registries disagree, marked *. The marked ones are published rather than withheld, and are the best available numbers rather than confirmed ones.

Capability scores are Epoch AI's Capabilities Index, and a model only enters this instrument if it appears in both, matched on name with no fuzzy matching: 108 scored models currently carry a price, and 37 of them clear the tier.

An earlier version of this page used an aggregator's route price. It has been replaced rather than adjusted. A route price is the price of whichever seller the router happens to use, so it moves for reasons that are nothing to do with a seller's decision — measured on six days of it, no model whose price moved was sold by a single seller and a third of the movements returned to a price the model already held. A rate card does not behave that way, so this is the better input as well as the one we may publish.

Capability data: Epoch AI, “AI Benchmarking Hub”, used under CC-BY 4.0. Prices: the sellers' own published pricing pages; the AI Price Index (CC-BY-4.0); and LiteLLM and models.dev (both MIT) where two registries agree.