GPT-4o vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B costs 20.0x less per output token than GPT-4o ($0.50 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $10.00
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.50
GPT-4o or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-4o has results on SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Lite and SWE-bench (full test set); Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-4o has a Design Arena: websites result, 831.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B takes 262K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
GPT-4o $0.0075, Ternary Bonsai 2 27B $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4o not benchmarked, Ternary Bonsai 2 27B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- GPT-4o $10.00 against Ternary Bonsai 2 27B $0.50 per million output tokens, 20.0x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-4o takes 128K tokens, Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index7 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 38.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Lite | 38.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench (full test set) | 18.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | 30.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 30.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 8.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SciCode | 1.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 25.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| GDPval | 9.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 2.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| ARC-AGI | 4.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 6.0 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| MathArena | 3.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 74.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| MMLU | 88.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 831 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 883 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 906 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 858 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 868 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 860 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 34.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 49.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| DTBench | 64.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LMCA | 16.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-4o | PrismML Ternary Bonsai 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Prism-ml |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | May 13, 2024 | September 18, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.50 | $0.075 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $0.50 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-4o better than Ternary Bonsai 2 27B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4o or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
GPT-4o costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Ternary Bonsai 2 27B costs $0.075 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B, with 262K tokens against 128K.
Has any benchmark tested both GPT-4o and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-4o has results on SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Lite and SWE-bench (full test set); Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.