Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Relace Search vs Pareto 26.10 Preview

Relace Search and Pareto 26.10 Preview cost about the same per output token ($3.00 vs $3.20 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Relace SearchRelace
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$3.00
U Pareto 26.10 PreviewUnbiased
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$3.20
vs $3.00 vs $3.20 per 1M output tokens. Relace Search is 1.1x cheaper.

Relace Search or Pareto 26.10 Preview: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Relace Search for output tokens 1.1x cheaper ($3.00 vs $3.20 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Relace Search has none yet; Pareto 26.10 Preview on GameBench 2. 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Relace Search not benchmarked, Pareto 26.10 Preview 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
Relace Search $3.00 against Pareto 26.10 Preview $3.20 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
Context window
Relace Search takes 256K tokens, Pareto 26.10 Preview 1.05M.

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 Index1 board measured
Coding benchmarks for Relace Search and Pareto 26.10 Preview
BenchmarkRelace SearchPareto 26.10 PreviewLeader
GameBench 2Not measured88.3Only Pareto 26.10 Preview measured
Neither model has a result on the other 51 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

Relace Search$0.0025Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview$0.0024Fits in one request

Pareto 26.10 Preview costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Relace Search$0.059Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview$0.050Fits in one request

Pareto 26.10 Preview costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Relace Search$0.230Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview$0.192Fits in one request

Pareto 26.10 Preview 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.

Specifications of Relace Search and Pareto 26.10 Preview
SpecificationRelace SearchPareto 26.10 Preview
MakerRelaceUnbiased
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 8, 2025October 1, 2026
Context window256K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$1.00$0.80
Output $/Mtok$3.00$3.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Relace Search better than Pareto 26.10 Preview for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Relace Search for output tokens 1.1x cheaper ($3.00 vs $3.20 per million).

Which is cheaper, Relace Search or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

Relace Search costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $3.00 per million output tokens; Pareto 26.10 Preview costs $0.80 and $3.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Relace Search or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

Pareto 26.10 Preview, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.

Has any benchmark tested both Relace Search and Pareto 26.10 Preview?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Relace Search has none yet; Pareto 26.10 Preview on GameBench 2. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of November 14, 2026.

Compare next